Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the kerala stay of eviction proceedings act 1999 Page 1 of about 2,729 results (0.452 seconds)

K.G Raveendran Vs. Corporation of Kochi

Court : Kerala

..... the learned counsel for the petitioner, having elaborately made submissions on the title dispute between third and fourth respondent and also what are said to be the illegal efforts on the part of the fourth respondent to forcibly evict the petitioner, has eventually submitted in terms of section 492(4) of the kerala municipality act, 1994 ('the act' for brevity) that there is no legal obligation on the petitioner's part to obtain consent from the landlord for the renewal. ..... as it could be seen from the record, in the wake of the petitioner's inability to produce the consent letter from the fourth respondent, the first respondent corporation issued ext.p5 proceedings refusing to renew the trade licence. ..... evident is the fact that this court on 2.8.2012 granted an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to w.p. ..... 18204/2012 & 25084/2013 -2- respondent has tried to forcibly dispossess the petitioner, he filed o.s.no.277 of 1996 and invited ext.p1 judgment whereby the learned principal munsiff court of ernakulam held that the petitioner should not be evicted without due process of law.4. ..... even in the wake of objection, if any, on the part of the fourth respondent, the respondent corporation is required to consider the request of the petitioner for the renewal of licence strictly within the statutory scheme.12. ..... director general of police [1999 (3) klt662.8. .....

Sri Anil Kumar Vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Court : Karnataka

..... while taking this court through the dictum laid down by the delhi high court, he would point out that the dispute regarding nature of the property needs to be adjudicated by a competent civil court and until the rights are decided in a final decree proceedings, it is immaterial whether the property is joint family property and therefore, balasaheb patil as a senior citizen is entitled to seek eviction of his son by invoking the provisions of senior citizens act, 2007.9. ..... he would also point out that father has constructed a residential house in 1999 and the construction is completed somewhere in the month of october 2005 while he was serving as a police officer. ..... learned counsel appearing for the father, mother and daughters in all these petitions placing reliance on the judgments has vehemently argued and contended that the residential house situated at chandra layout, bengaluru, is self acquired property of the father and has further pointed out that father while serving as a police officer applied for a vacant site and the bda executed lease cum sale agreement dated 05.05.1999 and thereafter obtained registered sale deed from bda. ..... the father asserts that while he was serving as police officer, he applied for allotment 10 of plot to the bda and the authorities have allotted a site on 31.03.1999 and sale deed is executed on 29.03.2014. .....

Smt. Sony @sonia Patil Vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Court : Karnataka

..... while taking this court through the dictum laid down by the delhi high court, he would point out that the dispute regarding nature of the property needs to be adjudicated by a competent civil court and until the rights are decided in a final decree proceedings, it is immaterial whether the property is joint family property and therefore, balasaheb patil as a senior citizen is entitled to seek eviction of his son by invoking the provisions of senior citizens act, 2007.9. ..... he would also point out that father has constructed a residential house in 1999 and the construction is completed somewhere in the month of october 2005 while he was serving as a police officer. ..... learned counsel appearing for the father, mother and daughters in all these petitions placing reliance on the judgments has vehemently argued and contended that the residential house situated at chandra layout, bengaluru, is self acquired property of the father and has further pointed out that father while serving as a police officer applied for a vacant site and the bda executed lease cum sale agreement dated 05.05.1999 and thereafter obtained registered sale deed from bda. ..... the father asserts that while he was serving as police officer, he applied for allotment 10 of plot to the bda and the authorities have allotted a site on 31.03.1999 and sale deed is executed on 29.03.2014. .....

Balasaheb Patil Vs. Smt. Soni @ Sonia Patil

Court : Karnataka

..... while taking this court through the dictum laid down by the delhi high court, he would point out that the dispute regarding nature of the property needs to be adjudicated by a competent civil court and until the rights are decided in a final decree proceedings, it is immaterial whether the property is joint family property and therefore, balasaheb patil as a senior citizen is entitled to seek eviction of his son by invoking the provisions of senior citizens act, 2007.9. ..... he would also point out that father has constructed a residential house in 1999 and the construction is completed somewhere in the month of october 2005 while he was serving as a police officer. ..... learned counsel appearing for the father, mother and daughters in all these petitions placing reliance on the judgments has vehemently argued and contended that the residential house situated at chandra layout, bengaluru, is self acquired property of the father and has further pointed out that father while serving as a police officer applied for a vacant site and the bda executed lease cum sale agreement dated 05.05.1999 and thereafter obtained registered sale deed from bda. ..... the father asserts that while he was serving as police officer, he applied for allotment 10 of plot to the bda and the authorities have allotted a site on 31.03.1999 and sale deed is executed on 29.03.2014. .....

Basanagouda Vs. Smt. Soni @ Sonia Patil

Court : Karnataka

..... while taking this court through the dictum laid down by the delhi high court, he would point out that the dispute regarding nature of the property needs to be adjudicated by a competent civil court and until the rights are decided in a final decree proceedings, it is immaterial whether the property is joint family property and therefore, balasaheb patil as a senior citizen is entitled to seek eviction of his son by invoking the provisions of senior citizens act, 2007.9. ..... he would also point out that father has constructed a residential house in 1999 and the construction is completed somewhere in the month of october 2005 while he was serving as a police officer. ..... learned counsel appearing for the father, mother and daughters in all these petitions placing reliance on the judgments has vehemently argued and contended that the residential house situated at chandra layout, bengaluru, is self acquired property of the father and has further pointed out that father while serving as a police officer applied for a vacant site and the bda executed lease cum sale agreement dated 05.05.1999 and thereafter obtained registered sale deed from bda. ..... the father asserts that while he was serving as police officer, he applied for allotment 10 of plot to the bda and the authorities have allotted a site on 31.03.1999 and sale deed is executed on 29.03.2014. .....

Mohanlal Vs. M. Subramani

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2008(6)KarLJ581; 2008(4)KCCR2326; 2008(5)AIRKarR345; AIR2008NOC2825

..... the brief facts of the case is that the respondent/landlord had filed the eviction petition against the revision petitioner herein under section 21(1)(h) of the karnataka rent control act, 1961 which came to be considered under section 27(2)(r) of the karnataka rent act, 1999 seeking eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant, on the ground of requirement of the petition schedule premises for his bona fide use and occupation, the said eviction petition was resisted by the revision petitioner before the court below, the court below after considering the case of the parties and the evidence placed on record ..... further, the respondent herein who was the co-owner of the petition schedule premises filed the eviction petition against the present revision petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petition schedule premises is required for his bona fide use and occupation and the respondent has not denied that one of his sisters filed a suit for partition seeking 1/4th share came to be decreed and final decree proceedings are pending. .....

Union of India Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad .

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the said interest of the tenant is, however, not assignable or transferable and, therefore, the interest of a company which is continuing in occupation of the premises 59 as a statutory tenant by virtue of the protection conferred by the karnataka rent control act, cannot be regarded as property of the company for the purpose of sub section (1) of section 22 of the act and for that reason also the provisions of section 22(1) were not attracted to the eviction proceedings instituted by the respondents against the appellant company. ..... being a protected or statutory tenant, podar mills could be dispossessed from the suit premises by the trust only on the grounds permissible under that act by instituting eviction proceedings before the competent rent court having exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the landlord and tenant, who in turn would then have to record its satisfaction about the entitlement of the landlord to recover possession of the suit property. ..... further, as the tenancy rights in relation to the suit property continue to vest in the central government by operation of law, the provisions of the 1999 act will be attracted, warranting suit for eviction to be filed against the union of india before the jurisdictional rent court 68 having exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the landlord and tenant. ..... state of kerala and another10, (in paragraph nos. .....

National Textile Corp. Ltd. Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad .

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the said interest of the tenant is, however, not assignable or transferable and, therefore, the interest of a company which is continuing in occupation of the premises 59 as a statutory tenant by virtue of the protection conferred by the karnataka rent control act, cannot be regarded as property of the company for the purpose of sub section (1) of section 22 of the act and for that reason also the provisions of section 22(1) were not attracted to the eviction proceedings instituted by the respondents against the appellant company. ..... being a protected or statutory tenant, podar mills could be dispossessed from the suit premises by the trust only on the grounds permissible under that act by instituting eviction proceedings before the competent rent court having exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the landlord and tenant, who in turn would then have to record its satisfaction about the entitlement of the landlord to recover possession of the suit property. ..... further, as the tenancy rights in relation to the suit property continue to vest in the central government by operation of law, the provisions of the 1999 act will be attracted, warranting suit for eviction to be filed against the union of india before the jurisdictional rent court 68 having exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the landlord and tenant. ..... state of kerala and another10, (in paragraph nos. .....

Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and Ors. Vs. O P Singh and Ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the said interest of the tenant is, however, not assignable or transferable and, therefore, the interest of a company which is continuing in occupation of the premises 59 as a statutory tenant by virtue of the protection conferred by the karnataka rent control act, cannot be regarded as property of the company for the purpose of sub section (1) of section 22 of the act and for that reason also the provisions of section 22(1) were not attracted to the eviction proceedings instituted by the respondents against the appellant company. ..... being a protected or statutory tenant, podar mills could be dispossessed from the suit premises by the trust only on the grounds permissible under that act by instituting eviction proceedings before the competent rent court having exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the landlord and tenant, who in turn would then have to record its satisfaction about the entitlement of the landlord to recover possession of the suit property. ..... further, as the tenancy rights in relation to the suit property continue to vest in the central government by operation of law, the provisions of the 1999 act will be attracted, warranting suit for eviction to be filed against the union of india before the jurisdictional rent court 68 having exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the landlord and tenant. ..... state of kerala and another10, (in paragraph nos. .....

K.N. Raghavan Vs. Habeeb Moahmmed and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (2002)10SCC180

..... during the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord filed eviction petition in the year 1994 before the rent controller seeking eviction of the tenant under section 11(2)(b) of the kerala buildings (lease and rent control) act alleging huge amount of rent being in arrears as against the present appellant ..... in the earlier proceedings for eviction before the high court, the appellant was found to be in arrears of rent and hence directed, unless he deposits arrears of rent within a month, eviction against him is ..... the only reason submitted for accepting fixation of rent by the rent controller is, since the appellant was not party to the proceedings in which the high court declared the said provisions as ultra vires, hence not ..... the rent controller decreed the eviction petition of the landlord and the appeal preferred by the tenant was also dismissed by holding that the rentamount of rs 12,46,000 is in ..... state of kerala1 allowed the appeal filed by the landlord and dismissed that of the tenant on the ground that the high court has declared the provisions relating to fixation of fair rent, namely, sections 5, 6 and 8 of the act as unconstitutional and void ..... seems in spite of the aforesaid litigation and decree the appellant again fell into arrears of rent as no payment was made by him from september 1986 till february 1993 which led the landlord to file another suit for eviction for arrears of rent. ..... counsel for the landlord submits, even thereafter he did not pay till february 1999. .....