Back
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. AJITHKUMAR
Usha Bai W/o Selvaraj – Appellant
Versus
Pandikasala Niyas S/o Pandikasala Muhammed Kutty – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Revision petitioners are the legal representatives of the tenant-appellant in R.C.A. No. 274 of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (II Additional District Judge), Kozhikode, who died on 03.11.2018, after disposal of the appeal. Respondents are the landlords. They filed R.C.P. No. 34 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-I), Kozhikode, seeking eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. R.C.P. was allowed as per the order dated 26.08.2016. An appeal was preferred under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act by the tenant. It was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, the legal representatives of the tenant have filed this Revision under Section 20 of the Act.
2. This Revision was admitted to file on 11.01.2019 and notice was ordered to be served on the respondents. On 13.11.2019, an interim order of stay was granted initially for a period of one month. The order of stay was extended from time to time and is still in force.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel appeared o
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a landlord's need for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act must be bona fide, sincere, and honest, and not a mere pretext. The courts inter....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a bona fide need for eviction, the burden of proof on tenants, and the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act.
Point of Law : Though the revisional power under Section 20 of the Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 it cannot be equated even with the second appellate power con....
Point of law :Eviction of tenant - Bona fide need put forward by the landlord by itself is depending upon a contingency, namely, the final outcome of the civil suit mentioned above. Therefore in that....
Eviction under Section 11(3) necessitates proving a genuine and bona fide need, distinct from mere whimsy, emphasizing the burden of proof on landlords.
Right to property, though not a fundamental right is still a constitutional right. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authorit....
Landlords must prove bona fide need for eviction; tenants' failure to substantiate claims regarding income and available premises supports eviction orders under the Rent Control Act.
It was observed that 'as a general rule the only cases in which decisions should be held to have been given per incuriam are those of decisions given in ignorance or forgetfulness of some inconsisten....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
