IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ
PUTHUKUDI MUYYARIKANDI ABDUL SALAM – Appellant
Versus
P.V.RAVEENDRAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the landlords' claim for eviction under rent control law. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. tenant's argument concerning availability of other buildings. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's reasoning on burden of proof in eviction case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. final ruling on the eviction order. (Para 7) |
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The issue in this Rent Control Revision revolves around the burden of proof to disentitle the landlords' claim for eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The landlords sought eviction under (3) of the Act to start a retail bakery business. The landlords are two brothers, along with the son of the second landlord, who is the second petitioner in the Rent Control Petition. The Rent Controller assessed the bona fide need and found that the landlords are entitled to eviction. No much argument appears to have been raised before the Rent Controller regarding the first proviso, though the tenant attempted to establish that the Rent Control Petition under (3) of the Act is hit by the first proviso. The first proviso states that the landlords are not entitled to eviction under (3) of the Act, if
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.