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!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 : 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 : 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 : 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
Reported in : [1967]20STC28(Ker)
S. Velu Pillai, J.1. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 14 of the General Sales Tax Act, 1125 (Act 11 of 1125) against an assessment made under Section 12(2). That Act, which may be referred to hereafter as the 1125 Act, was repealed with effect from the 1st April, 1963, by the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (Act 15 of 1963) which may be referred to hereafter as the 1963 Act. The appeal was decided on the 18th April, 1964. The 2nd respondent in this petition, the State Government, appealed against the said decision, under Section 39 of the 1963 Act, to the Appellate Tribunal, which by its order, exhibit P-3 dated the 5th February, 1965, overruled the preliminary objection, that the State Government had no right of appeal against the decision of the appellate authority. This petition is to quash exhibit P-3.2. Section 14 of the 1125 Act, which conferred the right of appeal on an assessee against his assessment, provided by Sub-section (4) thereof, that 'every order pas...
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 : AIR1984Ker164
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. The defendant in O. S. 193 of 1977 of the Munsiff's Court, Mavalikkara, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The appellant is the tenant of a building belonging to the plaintiff-respondent. As per rental arrangement dated 8-10-1974, evidenced by Ext. A1, the building was let to the defendant, for one year. The agreed rent was Rs. 1.55 per day. After the expiry of the term, the defendant continued in occupation of the building. The plaintiff instituted O. S. No. 322 of 1975 for eviction and for arrears of rent. It was contended by the defendant in the said suit that there was no valid notice terminating the tenancy as contemplated by section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The notice terminating the tenancy in that case was Ext. 85. By Ext 85 notice the tenancy was terminated with effect from 8-11-1975. According to the defendant, the tenancy should be terminated on the day preceding the date of tenancy. The contention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(2)KLT180
ORDERPius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chengannur in the assumed capacity of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chengannur dismissing an application for condoning the delay of 9 days caused in the matter of filing a Rent Control Appeal under Section 18 and the judgment consequently rejecting the appeal as time barred. On considering the revision for admission, this Court directed the Registry to enquire of the learned Subordinate Judge as to whether any notification has been issued notifying the Sub Judge, Chengannur as Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. The learned Subordinate Judge would inform the Registry that he has not come across any notification notifying the Sub Judge, Chengannur as Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. He however, referred to the judgment of this Court in Vijayappa Kurup v. Padmanabhan 2009 (2) KLT 939 for justifying the acti...
Tag this Judgment!