Back
P. B. SURESH KUMAR, C. S. SUDHA
Vannatham Veettil Moidu, S/o. Yusaf – Appellant
Versus
Vannatham Veettil Yoonus, S/o. Kadeesa – Respondent
ORDER :
C.S. Sudha, J.
This R.C.R under Section 20 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) has been filed by the respondent (the petitioner in the R.C.P) in R.C.A.No.26/2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (RCAA), Vadakara. The appeal was filed by the respondent-tenant in the R.C.P. against the order dated 18/12/2010 in R.C.P.No.28/2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Nadapuram. The parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.
2. The petitioner/landlord moved the RCC, Nadapuram seeking an order of eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. The petitioner claiming to be the owner of the petition schedule room on the basis of the decree in O.S.No.77/2004 on the file of the Sub Court, Vadakara, alleged that he bona fide requires the room for starting a retail stationary business in the tenanted premises. It was alleged that he has no other buildings or rooms in his possession, suitable for the proposed need. It was also alleged that the respondent is an immensely rich person, who has several other sources of income and therefore, he cannot get the benefit of the second proviso to Section
Point of Law : Principles of res judicata applies as between two stages in the same litigation so that if an issue has been decided at an earlier stage against a party, it cannot be allowed to be re-....
A tenant's entitlement to the benefits under the first proviso to Section 11(3) relies on demonstrating the landlord's possession of suitable vacant rooms, and the burden of proof shifts accordingly.
The tenant must provide substantial evidence to support the denial of the landlord's title as per the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965.
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 - 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
As per the first proviso to Section 11(1), nothing contained in this Section shall apply to a tenant whose landlord is State Government or Central Government or other public authority notified under ....
The denial of title of the landlord in rent control proceedings must be decided at the earliest opportunity and cannot be deferred to a later stage of the proceedings. The court emphasized the need t....
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
