Back
A. K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, MOHAMMED NIAS C. P.
C. J. George S/o Joseph – Appellant
Versus
M. P. Varghese S/o Paily – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The tenant/revision petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment in RCA No. 1/2019 on the files of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Kalpetta, Wayanad, that confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) passed by the Rent Control Court (Munsiff/Magistrate), Sulthanbathery, Wayanad in RCP No. 18/2014.
2. The respondent/landlord herein filed the petition for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act, contending that the petition schedule room was let out to the tenant in the year 2001 and by the agreement arrived at on 01.10.2007, the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.8,260/- for five years. The landlord also contended that the rent was later enhanced to Rs.30,000/- from 01.04.2009, and the rent from 30.09.2009 is in arrears and prayed for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The landlord further contended that the son of the petitioner, one Sabu, was employed temporarily in a petrol bunk, and as he is currently unemployed and depending on the petitioner for his livelihood, the petitioner is in bona fide need of the petition scheduled room for commencing busin
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....
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.
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.
'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....
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
Eviction under Section 11(3) necessitates proving a genuine and bona fide need, distinct from mere whimsy, emphasizing the burden of proof on landlords.
Bona fide need is not synonymous to dire need or necessity or a mere whim or fancy.
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
