Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ109; AIR2007NOC1100(SB)
ORDERV.K. Bali, C.J. and K.P. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. I have gone through the illuminative concurring judgments of Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. as also the concurring judgments of Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. expressing however, a different view than the one expressed by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. The present may be one of the rarest of rare cases where every Honourable Member of the Bench has chosen to write, even though concurring with the other, his own judgment. May be that the Honourable Member of the Bench concurring with the other wished to express the same view point in his own way.2. I have given deep and anxious the (sic) to both the views and after considering and reconsidering the whole issue, I have come to the conclusion that the view expressed by Kurian Joseph and Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. appears to be correct. With respect, thus, I would differ with the view taken by Abdul Gafoor and Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. Tenant means any person by whom o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 203 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 O R D E R 1. The revision petitioner is the respondent/tenant in the RCP No. 45/2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The respondents herein, who are landlords of the revision petitioner, instituted the above petition seeking an order of eviction in respect of the petition schedule building under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As per the pleadings in the petition and by the judgment impugned, it is revealed that a building facing east towards the Chittur Road is owned by the respondents. A portion in the upstairs, which is the petition schedule building was let out to the revision petitioner and he had been occupying the same as a lessee. On the southern side of the petition schedule building and towards the back side, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT487
J.M. James, J. 1. The landlord is the revision petitioner. His prayer to evict the tenants under Section 11(4)(i)of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in short, 'the Act' in R.C.P. No. 44/90 on the file of the Rent Controller, Cochin, was rejected. He challenged it by filing R.C.A. No. 16/92 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. But the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.2. The landlord rented out the petition schedule building on 1.8.1959 to Chandrasekhara Menon. The rent fixed, after enhancement, was Rs. 100/- per month. The tenant, his mother and his younger brother were residing in the scheduled building. In 1964, the tenant joined Defence Department and served upto 1987. The mother of the tenant was retaining the scheduled building, residing therein and was paying rent on behalf of the tenant. Meanwhile, he got married with the 1st respondent herein. On certain stage, she also joined his company. The tenant died. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2004(2)KLT415
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Can an application for appropriate directions regarding reconstruction or re-allotment under the second and third provisos to Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 be maintained by a tenant who has not been completely evicted from the building which was subject-matter of the R.C.P. or continues to retain possession of a portion of the said building is one of the question arising for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition.2. The landlord is no more and his son has got himself impleaded as additional revision petitioner. After a prolonged litigation which commenced wayback in 1973, the landlord could obtain an order of eviction against the respondents-tenants (legal heirs of the deceased original tenant) under Section 11(4)(iv). The delay was mainly due to a plea of kudikidappu raised by the tenant which was ultimately repelled by the Land Tribunal upon a reference case initiated in that context. The landlord coul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1998Ker50
Ramakrishnan, J. 1. The short question arising for consideration in this revision is thus: Whether the general principle of constructive res judicata or Section 15 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') would preclude a landlord from claiming eviction on any one of the grounds mentioned in Section 11 of the Act after an adverse finding in an earlier petition for eviction filed on some other grounds under that Section, if such omitted ground was available to him at the time of filing the earlier petition and the adverse decision thereon? 2. The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the revision are thus; Respondent-landlady filed RCP 53 of 1989 claiming eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the petition schedule building under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Act. It was alleged in the petition that the landlady assisted by her husband wanted to open a new stationery business and a showroom and depot in the petition schedule bui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2003(1)KLT87
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. Defendants 2 and 3 in a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction are the revision petitioners. This C.R.P. is filed against the order passed by the learned Sub Judge dismissing an application filed by the revision petitioners to send two documents containing the disputed signature and handwriting for expert opinion.2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and for consequential injunction. According to respondents 1 and 2, they are the legal heirs of deceased Anil Kumar and they alone are entitled to succeed the estate of Anil Kumar. The case put forward by respondents 1 and 2 in the plaint is that late Sri. Anil Kumar married the first respondent in accordance with the provisions of the Special Marriage Act and in that wedlock the second respondent was born. The first defendant who is the 4th respondent in the C.R.P. is the mother of deceased Anil Kumar. It is alleged that the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE9H DAY OF DECEMBER201418TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 1266 of 2013 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 732/2012 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:-: ----------------------- 1. ABDUL KHADER, S/O.MUHAMMED, FLAT NO.3A, HEAVEN, PUNDIT'S COLONY, KURANVANKONAM WARD, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM KALANNOOR VEEDU, KALANNOORPURAM DESOM, BAYAR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. (A1).2. JALEEL, S/O.MUHAMMED, H.NO.A72, SASTHAMANGALAM, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE FROM B.C.HOUSE, KUKAR DESOM MAGALPAD, UPPALAM VILLAGE, KASARAGOD (A2).3. RAJKUMAR SAHU, S/O.MUNNAN SAHU, SANTHOSHPUR DESOM, MIRGON VILLAGE VIDANAPPUR DISTRICT, BANGAL. (A3).4. JANTTU SAIT, S/O.PANCHANAN SAIT, RESIDENT OF MINTUGERU DESOM, WEST BENGAL (A4) 5. ABDULSALAM, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEAR KARUMAVARI MUSLIM JAMA ATH, UPANIYOOR DESOM, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (A5). BY A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1965Ker135
ORDERC.A. Vaidialingam, J.1. The petitioners, in these writ petitions, who are engaged in the manufacture and sale of all kinds of spirituous preparations besides Allopathic tinctures, challenge the right, of the State Government to collect fees for assaying the companies' products and the costs of the Excise establishment deputed to supervise the operations of the companies concerned.2. Mr. K.K. Menon, learned counsel appearing for all these petitions, as well as the learned Advocate General appearing for the State, the respondent in all these matters, have agreed to treat the pleadings in O. P. No. 1674 of 1962 as representing the stand taken by the various petitioners regarding their grounds of attack, against the levy in question, as well as the stand taken by the State Government, to justify the said levies. Therefore, I will refer to the averments in the pleadings in the said writ petition as well as the exhibits filed by the petitioner and the State Government in that matter.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!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!