Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1990Ker330
ORDERK.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The Rent Controller allowed the application of the respondents/landlords under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for short The Act and ordered eviction of the petitioner from the building; but only on the ground of bona fide need. This order was rendered on 31-7-1989. Thereupon the petitioner filed R.C.A.11/89 before the Appellate Authority namely, the Subordinate Judge, Thodupuzha on 16-10-1989. This Appeal was well within the prescribed time. On 17-10-1989 the petitioner moved an application for of stay execution of the order of eviction. On the request of the respondents, the said application was posted to 21-10-1989 to enable them to file their objection. The hearing was adjourned to 24-10-1989. In the meantime on 26-9-1989, the Notification conferring on the District Judge the powers of Appellate Authority was published in the Gazette. Pursuant to the Notification, the High Court issued an Offic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY2013/7TH SRAVANA, 1935 OP(C).No. 2058 of 2011 (O) --------------------------- AP.NO.15/2010 OF KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ........... PETITIONER: --------------------- THIRUVALLA EAST CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.3260, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SMT.APARNA RAJAN. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. E.A. ABRAHAM, THEKKANAMALAYIL, KUNNATHANAM P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA 581. 2. CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM001. 3. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND. R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ROSE MICHAEL. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.15295 OF 2011.THE COURT ON 29/07/2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. OP(C).No. 2058 of 2011 (O) APPENDI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2001CriLJ4448
ORDERM R. Hariharan Nair, J.1. The revision petitioners in these 26 cases are all accused in the connected cases pending trial before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode. Of these, 12 revisions are by a contractor and 14 are filed by Engineers. An FIR was filed against them on 30-9-1985 reporting that the latter, while working as Engineers of various rank for works in the Attappady Valley Irrigation Project, Agali, during the period from 24-7-1978 to 9-11-1981, they committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official positions in the matter implementing a criminal conspiracy with the contractors aforementioned by placing four supply orders dated 17-11-80, 18-12-80, 19-2-81 and 3-2-81 for 95 numbers of 200mm Sluice valves in favour of M/s. Indira Engineering Corporation, Coimbatore, of which one of the accused is the Managing Partner causing loss of crores of rupees to the Government exchequer. After investigation, 13 charge sheets were filed on 10-3-1989 alleging ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1974Ker162
Viswanatha Iyer, J. 1. I regret that I have to disagree with the conclusion reached by my learned brother Gopalan Nambiyar, J. 2. The main contention that is raised by the respondent is that as the appellate authority is not a court (civil or criminal) the provision contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. An answer to this contention must depend on a decision regarding the extent of the applicability of the principles contained in the Limitation Act to the proceedings under the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 3. The Limitation Act contains the general law of limitation of actions. The various Articles in the First Schedule of the Act prescribe the period of limitation for suits, appeals and applications. The Act also lays down in Sections 4 to 24 the general principles for determination of the period of limitation for suits, appeals and applications. They relate to the powers of the court to extend, exclu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
R. BASANT.J 1. Two questions of moment which have substantial significance in the Rent Control law in the State are raised for consideration in this revenue petition. Challenge is raised against concepts that have occupied the field for a fairly long period of time. Ideal law is the perfect and just law. The quest and the endeavour to achieve that must continue. That concepts have occupied the field for a long period of time is not, by itself sufficient reason to refuse to have a re-look at the law when serious doubts exist about the validity of such entrenched concepts. The questions are: i) In a claim for eviction under Section 11(3), 11(4), 11(7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (the Act hereafter), is the landlord bound, after establishing such grounds for eviction, to show further that his claim for eviction is bona fide? Is not the Court under Section 11(10) at all bound to consider the bona fides of such claim? Is there serious dichotomy between Aboo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker383
ORDERK.A. Nayar, J.1. Even though elaborate arguments have been advanced in this case, I feel the question 10 be decided falls within a narrow compass, for it is admitted that the factual details of the different cases need not be gone into. In all these cases, there had been violations of the Gold (Control) Rules against which prosecutions have been launched under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (Act 45 of 1968) and the Rules framed thereunder. For violation of the Act and the Rules, criminal complaints have been filed and the same is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. In some cases charges have been framed and in others charges have not been framed. The Gold (Control) Act 1968 (For short 'the Act') was repealed with effect from 6-6-1990. It was only a simple repeal and was not followed by any re-enactment. The only question is whether the criminal cases pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) can be continued....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1982Ker29
ORDERP. Subramonian Poti, Ag. C.J. 1. These revisions are against orders of the Addl. District Judge, Mavelikkara in 6 revision petitions under Section 20 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) disposed of by a common order covering these and some other cases. The revision petitioner in all these cases is the same. He is the landlord of a building. Respondents in these cases are tenants occupying various rooms of the building on rent. The revision petitioner, as landlord, sought surrender of those rooms. The respondents did not surrender. The petitioner moved petitions before the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of the tenants. In all these petitions he alleged as grounds for eviction, (1) arrears of rent (2) bona fide need of the petitioner for occupation of the building and (3) requirement of the building for the purpose of reconstruction. The Court is no longer concerned with the first of these pleas. The plea with regard to bona fide n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2007Ker114
K.S. Radhakrishnan, Actg. C.J.1. Writ petition was preferred by the appellant herein seeking a declaration that the word 'encumbrances' enumerated in Rule 9(9) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002 does not include tenancy arrangements with respect to the secured assets sold as per Rule 8 and also for a declaration that the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (Enforcemerits) Rules 2002 does not authorise the eviction of tenants in occupation of secured assets and also for other consequential relicfs. Petitioner has also challenged the no-lice dated 31-10-2006 received from the bank directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the bank failing which petitioner was informed that coercive steps would be taken to evict the petitioner from the premises. Learned single Judge found no infirmity in the notice issued by the bank and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same this a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ791
ORDERK.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.1. This revision petition is by the landlord, who urged the ground available under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to evict the tenant. The Rent Controller allowed eviction only under latter count and rejected on the former part. In appeal by the tenant and cross-objection by the landlord the eviction ordered under Section 11(4)(iii) of the Act was reversed and the order on the other grounds was sustained. Therefore, this revision petition by the landlord.2. It is contended that the bonafides urged by the landlord has been concurrently found by the Authorities below. But the tenant was given the benefit in terms of the first Proviso to Section 11(3) of (sic) Act as it was found that a building owned by the landlord with Number 173 was in his (sic) at the material point of time. It is (sic) that this finding entered by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Rent Control ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker312
ORDERPadmanabhan, J.1. First respondent is the landlord of a building, having six rooms let out to six tenants. He filed six rent control petitions against them for eviction. Though the rent control Court ordered eviction on the grounds of bona fide need for own occupation and bona fide need for reconstruction, appellate and revisional authorities confirmed the order only on the latter ground. Petitions were filed in 1967, but final orders in revisions were only in 1981. In 1989, first respondent filed six execution petitions for getting eviction. Petitions were contested on variousgrounds. All those grounds were rejected and delivery was ordered, which was confirmed in revision.2. In these original petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, one of the grounds raised before the execution Court and revisional authority alone was canvassed.3. In 1990, consequent on the formation of Pathanamthitta district, the area, where the building stands, became a municipality. Till then,...
Tag this Judgment!