Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Preeta A.K., JJ
Bijoy – Appellant
Versus
Mumthas Beegam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the background and procedural history of the eviction proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. analysis of evidentiary burden under the rent control act, specifically regarding bona fide need and the protection of the 2nd proviso to section 11(3). (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. affirmation of concurrent findings and conditional grant of time for vacating premises. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT PREETA A.K., J.
This Rent Control Revision arises from a common judgment in R.C.P.Nos.25 and 26 of 2016 of the Rent Control Court, Irinjalakuda. The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in R.C.P.No.26 of 2016 filed by the respondent herein.
2. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking vacant possession of the shop room bearing door no.11/120 of Irinjalakuda municipality under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 alleging arrears of rent from 01/11/2015 and also alleging bona fide requirement of the petition schedule building for commencing cement, paint and hardware business for the husband of the respondent. The revision petitioner resisted the Rent Control Petition on the ground that he
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
