Back
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
C. P. Shafiaged, S/o. Usmankoya – Appellant
Versus
Mariyambi, D/o. Imbichikoya – Respondent
ORDER :
[Shoba Annamma Eapen J.]
1. The tenants are the revision petitioners. They filed the Rent Control Revisions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), challenging the the common judgment dated 13.12.2016 in R.C.A.Nos.112/2015 & 113/2015 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (III Additional District Judge, Kozhikode) arising from the common order dated 25.06.2015 in R.C.P.Nos.156/2013 & 157/2013 of the Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II, Kozhikode and the judgment dated 20.01.2016 in R.C.A.No.106/2014 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (III Additional District Judge, Kozhikode) arising from the order dated 13.6.2014 in RCP No. 158/2013 of the Rent Control Court/Additional Munsiff-II, Kozhikode. The Appellate Authority confirmed the orders of eviction granted by the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-II), Ernakulam, in favour of the respondent-landlady under Section 11(3) of the Act.
2. Rent control petitions were filed by the landlady under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) (in RCP No. 158/2013) and under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) (in RCP No.156/2013 & 157/2013)of the Act. The petition schedule buildi
Bona fide need is not synonymous to dire need or necessity or a mere whim or fancy.
'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....
Burden of proof in eviction cases lies with both parties to establish arrears or genuine need.
The bona fide need of a landlady under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, outweighs the tenant's assertions of mala fides.
Landlords' bonafide need for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 must be supported by evidence of genuine intent and financial capability.
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....
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.
The court upheld the need for genuine dependency for eviction under Section 11(3), stating financial dependency is not the only criterion.
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
