Court : Kerala
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J 1. Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant, a partnership firm by name "Liji Agencies", is the order of eviction passed against the revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 11(2)(b), subletting under Section 11(4)(i) and cessation of occupation without reasonable cause under Section 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. The landlord had invoked the ground under Section 11(3) also but that ground does not survive any longer. 2. Sri.P.V.Chandramohan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted at the very outset that as the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) is a tentative one, it will suffice, if the petitioners are given sufficient time to avail the remedy under Section 11(2)(c). Therefore, we confirm the eviction order passed under Section 11(2)(b) and grant to the revision petitioner two months time from today for getting the same vacated under Section 11(2)(c). 3. In this revision we are concerned with the corr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID TUESDAY, THE4H DAY OF MARCH201413TH PHALGUNA, 1935 R.C.Rev.No. 340 of 2012 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA352002 of II ADDL.RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOLLAM DATED2903-2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP352007 of PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROLLER, KOLLAM DATED2502-2009 REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- A.KAMALUDHEEN, S/O.ALI AKBAR, KUTHIRAPANTHI VEEDU, KANKATHU NAGAR, KOLLAM-12. BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. M.SHAHARBAN BEEVI, SIDDIQUE MANZIL, NEAR KAVALPPURA SCHOOL, PALLIMUKKU, KOLLAM-691001.2. SIDDIQUE, S/O.M.SHAHARBAN BEEVI, RESIDING AT --DO. DO----, PIN-691001. R1 AND2BY ADV. SMT.K.G.BINDU R1 AND2BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY,THE14H DAY OF JULY201523RD ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 19292 of 2014 (J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GEETHA RAMANUJAN, PARTNER, M/S.LEEGEE CORPORATION LEEGEES BUILDING, G.V. IYER ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI- 682 003. BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ESTATE MANAGER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 003.2. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, PORT TRUST BUILDING, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 003.3. COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PORT TRUST BUILDING, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN - 682 003.4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI. R1-R3 BY ADVS. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ISAAC THOMAS SRI.NOBY THOMAS CYRIAC R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3628
ORDERVishwanath, J1. Heard. Admitted.2. In this Revision Petition filed by the tenant, the Order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Mysore, on 7.8.1995 in Revision (Rent) No. 131/1995 allowing the Revision Petition and setting aside the Order passed by the learned III Addl. First Munsiff, Mysore, in H.R.C. No. 411/1987 on 7.4.1995 dismissing I.A.III under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been challenged.3. The learned Munsiff dismissed I.A.HI under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The learned District Judge, in the revision allowed I.A.III and permitted the landlord to incorporate the ground under Section 21(1)(h).4. The facts necessary to decide the present Revision are:-The Eviction Petition 411/1987 was filed earlier by the landlord S. Krishnaswamy against the present Revision Petitioner-tenant, under Section 21(1)(b)(d) and (o) of the Act. Subsequently, the present respondent in this Revision Petition Sri P. Rudraswamy purchased the property from Krishnaswamy. This Krishnaswamy has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN113; JT2004(3)SC102; 2004(2)SCALE783; (2004)12SCC448
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Few facts, which are considered necessary and relevant for disposal of this appeal, in short and substance, are the following:The respondent No. 1 filed a petition for eviction under Section 12 of The Tripura Buildings, (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act') on the grounds of bona fide requirement and default in payment of rent. The Rent Control Court held that the claim of bona fide requirement was not proved. However, it found that the appellants were defaulters in payment of rent and directed the appellants to hand over the possession of the building in question to the respondent No. 1. The appellants, filed R.C.C. Appeal 4/1995 under Section 20 of the Act before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Tripura against the said order of the Rent Control Court. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal holding that the appellants failed to deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Control Court and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)524; AIR1998SC3146; JT1998(5)SC617; 1998(2)KLT786(SC); 1998(4)SCALE639; (1998)6SCC491; [1998]Supp1SCR49
Acts/Rules/Orders:Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11(3)JDUGMENT1. Appellant is the landlord. Respondent is the tenant. Appellant sought eviction of the tenant on the ground that the premises were required for the bonafide need of the son of the landlord to start his business in those premises. Initially the petition of the landlord was dismissed and even the appellate authority concurred with the Rent Controller. The main reason for arriving at the concurrent findings was that the landlord had not stated in his petition the exact nature of the business which was required to be carried out by his son in the premises in dispute. The High Court on a revision filed by the landlord, remanded the case to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal afresh, keeping in view the bona fide need of the landlord as pleaded by him.2. The appellate authority, after remand, found that the landlord's need to accommodate his son, Jayarajan, for the bona fide need for star...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1992Ker95
ORDERK.A. Nayar, J. 1. In this Original Petition, an agriculturist having two children, both married and living in the same house along with their father, is the petitioner/landlord. He filed a petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'the Act') to evict the first respondent tenant which is a company having business all over India. The petition was filed on the ground that the building is bona fide required for his own occupation or for the occupation of his dependent children. The Rent Control Court held that the sons are dependent on the petitioner, that they have necessary means to start the business, that the business which the petitioner wanted to start in the building was stationery business and that the schedule building is the only shop building owned by the petitioner in Palghat Municipality. But, as the petitioner is an agriculturist and as the particulars of the amount proposed to be invested was not mentioned in the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1972Ker254
ORDERK. Sadasivan, J. 1. The tenants, defeated in all the courts below, have come up in revision. Against them the landlord filed R. C. O. P No. 304/66 under Section 11 (2), (3) and (4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (shortly stated the Act) for eviction. Eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of sub-letting; the other grounds were all found in favour of the tenants. This order of the Rent Controller stands confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the District Judge in revision. The learned counsel has pressed before this Court a new ground which was never taken by him in any of the courts below. The ground is that the Addl. Munsiff who dealt with the matter was not competent to deal with the case, as under the relevant notification creating the Court of the Bent Controller, Addl. Munsiffs are excluded in stations where there are more Munsiffs than one. According to the learned counsel, the Principal Munsiff at the station alone can a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2006(2)KLT285
ORDERM. Ramachandran, J.1. Appellate Authority under the Rent Control Act (District Judge, Trivandrum), by order dated 17-12-2005 in R.C.A No. 43 of 2003 has confirmed the orders passed by the Rent Controller, Trivandrum in R.C.P. No. 34 of 2002. Eviction is ordered under Section 11(3) and 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short Rent Control Act). The tenant has come up in revision.2. The rental arrangement admittedly was in existence for decades. Serious efforts are seen to have been taken for eviction, after a notice issued on 16-05-2002, demanding vacant possession. Scheduled building is a residential house in the heart of Trivandrum city. The landlady had pointed out that she had no other building in Trivandrum. Although she was residing in her own house at Nagercoil, in Tamilnadu, being her native place she wanted to come over to Trivandrum. She had lost interest for Nagercoil, since her husband had passed away and her only child also was no more...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT647
ORDERR. Bhaskaran, J.1. This revision is filed at the instance of the landlord who sought eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(ii) and (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court allowed the application under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv), while disallowed the claim under Section 11 (4)(ii) of the Act. In appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of eviction on all the grounds and dismissed the Rent Control Petition.2. The respondent obtained the petition schedule building from the revision petitioner/landlord as per rent deed executed in 1984. According to the landlord, the tenant did not pay any rent subsequently. She wanted to demolish the building and construct a residence-cum-commercial complex for increasing her income and for her better living. It is further stated in the Rent Control Petition that since the landlord wanted the tenant to vacate, he became inimical towards ...
Tag this Judgment!