Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-08-1990
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
Decided on : Nov-20-1990
Reported in : AIR1991Ker132
Bhat, J.1. Revision petitioner is the second respondent in RCP 5 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, filed by the landlords for eviction of the tenant as well as the alleged sub-tenant (revision petitioner) under the provisions of Section 11 of Kerala Act, 2 of 1965. Along with the eviction petition, the landlords applied for issue of a commission and a Commissioner was appointed ex parte. The Commissioner submitted a report. It is pointed out that the revision petitioner was present when the Commissioner inspected the premises. The report was filed in 1986. Four years later, the revision petitioner filed I. A. 1313 of 1990 to . set aside the report dated 22-2-1986 and to appoint a fresh Commissioner to undertake the work with the assistance of an expert engineer. The petition was opposed by the landlords and dismissed by the Rent Controller on the ground that there was no reason to set aside the report and that the petition was highly belated and devoid of bona f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Mar-29-1990
Reported in : I(1991)ACC70; 1990ACJ751
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The question raised in this appeal has some moments for victims in motor accidents. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the new Act'), came into force on July i, 1989, containing Section 140 in which the amount of compensation for 'liability without fault' in accident cases has been fixed at twenty-five thousand rupees in respect of death and twelve thousand rupees in respect of permanent disablement. The question raised is this :'Whether the victim (or his legal representatives) in a motor accident which happened before the said date is entitled to compensation as provided in the new Act ?'2. Some of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in this State have awarded compensation according to the amounts fixed in the new Act and appeals have been filed against such awards in which the aforesaid question alone has been raised. When we heard arguments in this appeal, we had the assistance of arguments addressed by some of the standing counsel engaged by insurance com...
Tag this Judgment!