SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 54742

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
PUTHIYA MALIYAKKAL MINAVER – Appellant
Versus
T.P.RAMLA – Respondent


Advocates:
E.NARAYANAN

ORDER

[RCRev.Nos.427/2019, 166/2021, 168/2021]

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The simple issue that has to be considered by this Court is whether the tenant is entitled to seek restitution consequent upon setting aside the ex parte order of eviction.

2. The brief facts are as follows:

The landlord obtained an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 as ex parte. The order of eviction was passed on 14.3.2016, The tenant claimed that she paid rent upto January, 2017. This fact has been denied by the landlord. Notice to the tenant was served on the premises by affixture. The tenant came to know about the ex parte order when delivery was effected on 22.2.2017. Immediately on 25.2.2017, she filed an application to set aside the order. She also filed an application to set aside the ex parte order in execution. Those applications were dismissed. However, her application to set aside the ex parte order was allowed on payment of costs on 29.03.2017. An application for restitution was filed. That application has already been allowed. In the appeals, the Appellate Authority affirmed the orders of the Rent Controller. In these three separate Rent Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top