Back
P. B. SURESH KUMAR, JOHNSON JOHN
Lalu Mathew, S/o John Mathew – Appellant
Versus
Bino Alexander, S/o. C. D. Alexander – Respondent
ORDER :
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The tenant in a proceedings for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is the petitioner in this revision petition. The respondent is the landlord. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction, and the Appellate Authority affirmed the decision of the Rent Control Court.
2. The tenanted premises is a portion of the ground floor of a three storeyed building measuring 750 sq.ft. which is being used by the tenant as a showroom for his crockery business. The tenancy arrangement commenced in the year 1997. Earlier, the tenant was using the second floor of the building also as a godown to keep the stock of the products handled by him. However, on a request made by the landlord, the tenant surrendered the second floor of the building and is using an adjacent building as his godown. It was while so, the eviction petition was instituted. The case set out by the landlord in the eviction petition is that he needs the premises for establishing a computer related business in which he is proficient and for establishing a dental clinic for his wife who is a Dentist. One of the contentions raised by the tenant in the proceedings was th
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that a landlord's need for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act must be bona fide, sincere, and honest, and not a mere pretext. The courts inter....
Point of law :Eviction of tenant - Bona fide need put forward by the landlord by itself is depending upon a contingency, namely, the final outcome of the civil suit mentioned above. Therefore in that....
Eviction under Section 11(3) necessitates proving a genuine and bona fide need, distinct from mere whimsy, emphasizing the burden of proof on landlords.
Right to property, though not a fundamental right is still a constitutional right. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authorit....
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.
Courts have a duty to ensure that there is no judicial contribution to delay.
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
