Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker131
Mohammed, J.1. What is before us is a theme of intense debate involving the use and occupation of forest lands and its inevi-table reaction to ecological balance and environmental outfit. This is brought to us by way of a 'public interest litigation' moved by a registered Society known as 'Nature Lovers Movement'.2. 'Love of nature' is not a modern phenomenon. It existed from the beginning of the humanity itself. 'Man is the measure oi all things.' so said Plato. Man loves nature and nature in turn nourishes him. Man serves society and society in turn preserves him. Nature and society are thus interdependent and the duty of man to them is inherent. These basic percepts envisage the protection of environment and preservation of humanity. But 'For the greenest of environmentalists, humans are oflesser importance than the abundant and diverse flora and fauna of the planet. Humans are defined as a recent addition to the livestock and are considered to have been a wholly disruptive influenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1999Ker181
Mohammed, J. 1. In this writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act the respondents raised a preliminary point that this appeal is not maintainable for the reason that the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge in sum and substance is an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Before examining the appeal on merits we would prefer to adjudicate this preliminary issue at the outset.2. The basic facts required for the present purpose are stated hereunder :The appellants are tenants in respect of the 'buildings' sought to be evicted by the respondents-landlords in a proceeding under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These 'buildings' are actually rooms forming part of a larger building owned by the landlord. The Rent Control Court after enquiry ordered eviction on the ground of reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority in appeal und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT313
Jawahar Lal Gupta, C.J.1. Is the landlord, who seeks eviction of the tenant Under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on the ground of need to reconstruct the building bound to produce the plan along with the petition or during the proceedings? Is the failure to do so fatal to the petition? This is the question before the Full Bench. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed.2. On March 6, 1964, the demised premises were given on lease to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for a period of ten months. The monthly rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 9/-. After the lapse of more than 15 years, the petitioner sent a notice dated September 22, 1979 to the respondents. By this notice, the tenancy was terminated. They were asked to vacate the premises. On October 10, 1979 the first respondent had sent a reply. Mediation followed. The building was got repaired. The monthly rent was raised to Rs. 15/-. The rent at the revised rate was paid upto April 1980. Thereafter no ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(3)ILR(Ker)100; 2012(3)KLT113; 2012(3)KLJ10
Ramakrishna Pillai, J. 1. During the pendency of an appeal filed by the tenant against the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the ‘Act’) before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the landlord sold the tenanted premises to a third party and later re-purchased the same. Is he entitled to move the court under Section 12 seeking direction to pay arrears of rent? This question has been raised in this revision filed by the tenant challenging the orders passed by the authorities under this Act. 2. The facts can be briefly stated: The respondent moved the Rent Control Court for evicting the revision petitioner/tenant from the tenanted premises under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3)of the Act. Though the claim of bonafide need was negatived, the learned Rent Controller directed the revision petitioner to vacate the premises within two months from the date of the order, as it was found that rent was in arrears...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA THURSDAY, THE16H DAY OF JANUARY201426TH POUSHA, 1935 RCRev..No. 66 of 2013 () ------------------------- RCA. NO.59/2010 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,ERNAKULAM. RCP. NO.110/2006 OF III ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM. ...... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M. BASHEER, AGED48YEARS, S/O.P.P.ALI, HOTEL PARAGON, PALARIVATTOM. P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 024. BY ADV. SRI.N.M.MOHAMMED AYUB. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REMANI GOPALAN, AGED ABOUT58YEARS, W/O.GOPALAN, INDIA PRINTERS, SWAMI CHINMAYANANDA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16.2. K.K. FAIZAL, AGED44YEARS, S/O.MOOSA HAJI, RESIDING AT ORION APARTM...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
K. Ramakrishnan, J. 1. This is a petition filed by one of the respondents in R.C.P.No.62 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Tirur challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the Rent Controller under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It is alleged in the petition that the first respondent herein filed Ext.P1 Rent Control Petition as R.C.P.No.62 of 2013 for eviction of the respondents in that petition from the petition schedule building on the ground of arrears of rent, bonafide need and subsequent acquisition of building by the tenants under sections 11 (2), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. In order to prove the case of the landlady that the tenants have acquired another building for the purpose of using the same as godown, for which the petition schedule building was taken, she had taken out an ex parte commission and the Commissioner filed Ext.P2 ex parte report showing the things ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 1. These two writ appeals have been filed against a common judgment dated 14.07.2015 dismissing W.P.(C) No.19292 of 2014 and W.P.(C) No. 5284 of 2015. The parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petitions. The facts and issues raised in both these writ appeals are more or less similar, hence it shall be sufficient to refer to the pleadings in W.P.(C) No.19292 of 2014 giving rise to WA No.1704 of 2015 for deciding both the appeals. The facts which emerged from the pleadings of the parties are: The Cochin Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'Port Trust') has granted various lands on lease to different parties in exercise of its power under Section 33 of Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. An area of 49.56 cents of land in plot No.25 at G.V. Iyer Road, Cochin Wellington Island was granted on lease to one V.K. Rajaram on 30.09.1961. A copy of the lease deed has been brought on record as Ext.P1 to W.P.(C) No.19292 of 2014. The petitioner is an assignee from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~39 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Decided on:30. h November, 2017 RC.REV. 348/2017 & CM Nos. 26920/2017, 42417/2017 VIJAY KUMAR ARORA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Brijesh Kr. Tamber, versus Advocate. TILAK RAJ CHADHA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh with Mr. Sunil Lalwani, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER (ORAL) 1. The matter had earlier been listed for 6th December, 2017. However, on the application (CM No.42417/2017) of the respondent, it has come up today. With the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the date of hearing is advanced and the matter is taken up for hearing.2. The petitioner herein is admittedly a tenant in the suit premises described as shop No.143, Desh Bandhu Gupta Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05 as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed to the application. A case for eviction (E-213/17/12) was instituted against him by the respondent (landlord) on 28.05.2012 on the ground of bona fide need under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE5H DAY OF MARCH201514TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 33114 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- THANKAPPAN, S/O.KILIYAN, AGED60YEARS, POONTHOPPIL HOUSE, MADATHUVILA LANE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM - 691 001 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-691 001 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TRIVANDRUM TALUK, TRIVANDRUM FORT, TRIVANDRUM-695 023 4. THE TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED *Addl.R5. PROJECT ENGINEER, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, T.C.4/1654, MAYOORAM, NO.7, BELHAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. *ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED1601.2015 IN IA.NO.547/15. R1 TO R3 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI R4 BY S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD547; 2001(2)ALT683
ORDER1. In this tenant's revision under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereafter called 'the Act'), the first petitioner is the proprietary concerned and the second petitioner is proprietor of the first petitioner (hereafter compendiously called as 'tenant'). The tenant is aggrieved by the order of the Court of Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, dated 24-3-2000 in RA No.47 of 1995, confirming the eviction order passed by the Court of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, in RC No.t084 of 1986 dated 31-12-1994. The order of the appellate authority is impugned on the ground that the same is vitiated by irregularity and illegality. The parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Rent Control Case.2. The tenant is running business in the name and style of M/s. Jalal & Sons. The tenant was inducted in 1938. The tenant runs a watch repair and sales shop in suit mulgi bearing premises No.5-8-543. The shop a...
Tag this Judgment!