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
Ayanikkattu Unniraja and others v. K.P.Gurudas (2014(1) KHC 473)
Antony P.V. v. M/s.Swastik Sweet House and others (2017 (2) KHC 951)
Janakiamma and others v. Bhaskaran Nambiar (2014 (4) KLT 931)
Korin v. Indian Cables Co.Ltd (AIR 1978 SC 312)
Rukmini Amma Saradamma v. Kallyani Sulochana and others [(1993) 1 SCC 499]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.