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

1979 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 5

KERALA HIGH COURT
, J
Landlord – Appellant
Versus
Tenant – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Advocate A, Advocate B
For the Respondents:Advocate C, Advocate D

Table of Content
1. tenant's absence from premises constitutes ceasing to occupy. (Para 1)
2. legislation balances landlord's rights and tenant's protection. (Para 2)
3. court restores eviction based on tenant's failure to prove occupancy. (Para 3)

1. The landlord of a non residential building has filed this revision petition against an order of the District Judge allowing a revision filed by the tenant against the concurrent orders passed by the lower tribunals directing his eviction from the building on the ground that he has ceased to occupy the building continuously for a period of six months without reasonable cause. The building let out consists of a room (third room in a seven roomed building), a verandah in front and two sheds behind the room. It was let out to conduct an oil mill by the respondent. The tent was Rs. 100/- per month. The tenant stopped the oil mill business towards the end of 1969 and the room remained locked for nearly 2 1/2 years and then the landlord filed an application for eviction under S.11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act stating that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for six months continuously without reasonable c






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