Back
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
K. Moideenkutty, S/o Kunheen – Appellant
Versus
Maniparambil Viswanadhan Nair, S/o Kalyani Amma – Respondent
ORDER :
Shoba Annamma Eapen, J.
The respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.7 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Tirur, is the petitioner. The landlord has filed the rent control petition seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. It was allowed. The appeal filed by the petitioner herein as R.C.A.No.43 of 2018 under Section 18(1) (b) of the Act was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge), Tirur. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 20 of the Act. For convenience, the parties are referred to as stated in the Rent Control Petition.
2. The rent control petition was filed by the landlord claiming eviction on the ground of bona fide need. The need urged was that the landlord wanted to start hotel business in the petition schedule shop rooms. It was further contended that the petition scheduled shop rooms are the most suitable rooms since it has direct access from Kuttipuram bus stand. The claim of the landlord was resisted by the tenant by contending that the petition is hit by Section 15 of the Act since very same need was urged by the
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....
Burden of proof in eviction cases lies with both parties to establish arrears or genuine need.
'Propriety' does not confer power upon High Court to re-appreciate evidence to come to a different conclusion, but its consideration of evidence is confined to find out legality, regularity and propr....
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.
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.
Section 20 of Act cannot enable High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal.
Bona fide need is not synonymous to dire need or necessity or a mere whim or fancy.
Point of Law - Appellate Authority held that the finding of the Rent Control Court that the rent agreed by the landlord and tenant is by mutual consent cannot be sustained
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
