Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the kerala stay of eviction proceedings bill 2004 Page 6 of about 2,001 results (0.260 seconds)

Shyam Sunder Agrawal Vs. Smt. Gyanwati Devi and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3858K

..... in view of the observations made in the case of achal misra (supra), to me it appears that the petitioner can challenge the order declaring the vacancy, along with the order of allotment/release passed by the rent control and eviction officer. ..... (supra) that in a revision against the final order, the order notifying the vacancy could not be challenged and that the failure to independently challenge the order notifying the vacancy would preclude a successful challenge to the allotment order itself, in fact, the person aggrieved by the order notifying the vacancy can be said to have two options available. ..... by means of present writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner, who is said to be in occupation of the accommodation in dispute, has challenged the order passed by the rent control and eviction officer, aligarh, whereby a vacancy has been declared in the accommodation in dispute.2. ..... it is thus clear that an order notifying a vacancy which leads to the final order of allotment can be challenged in a proceeding taken to challenge the final order, as being an order which is a preliminary step in the process of decision making and in passing the final order. ..... , cannot be understood as laying down that the failure to challenge the order notifying the vacancy then and there, would result in the loss of right to the aggrieved person of challenging the notifying of vacancy itself, in a revision against the final order of allotment. .....

Ballabhdas Rathi Vs. Smt. Gopal Krishna Goushala

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2005(2)MPHT401; 2005(2)MPLJ398

..... if the defendant chooses not to appear after he has been served, the court may proceed in his absence, but if he subsequently appears, he ought not to be debarred from taking any further part in the proceedings even if he can show no good cause for his absence : all that the code says in order 9 rule 7, is that, if he does show good cause, the ex parte order may be set aside and the defendant heard in answer to the suit, as if he had appeared on the date fixed ..... thomas, air 1961 kerala 287, it has been held, where a defendant, whose application under order 9 rule 7 for setting aside an exparte order passed against him was allowed, did not make an application for the cross-examination of the plaintiff or his witnesses who were examined earlier and thus did not avail himself of the right to cross-examine them, the evidence recorded before the defendant entered appearance is binding on him ..... there being no other evidence, the suit seeking eviction under section 12 (1)(a), (g) of the act and for recovery of arrears was dismissed ..... there being no other evidence, relying on statements aforesaid of plaintiff/respondent's witnesses, the suit seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of rent has been decreed. ..... non-payment of arrears aforesaid, the civil judge shall straightway pass a decree seeking eviction and arrears of rent under section 12 (1)(a) of the act. ..... the suit seeking eviction under section 12 (1)(a)(g) of the act was filed on ..... 30-a/91 seeking eviction and recovery of arrears of .....

Rai Chand JaIn Vs. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1991SC744; JT1990(4)SC638; 1990(2)SCALE1131; (1991)1SCC422; [1990]Supp3SCR91

..... this was contested by the tenant that inspite of the landlord's knowing of the fact he filed the eviction petition after a considerable period of time and as such he acquiesced to this and so he is debarred from proceeding with the application of ejectment and could not get any relief. ..... the second dimension of the submission on behalf of the appellant is that the landlady let out the demised premises to the appellant for the purpose of running the printing press and the press is being run there and she having accepted rent paid by cheque from the account of said press and given receipts since the inception of the tenancy without any objection can not plead that section 11 of the said rent act has been violated and that she was entiled to have an order of eviction on that ..... specifically stated in the lease deed that the demised premises were to be used for residential purpose only and the tenant will not sublet the premises or any part thereof and application for eviction of the tenant (appellant in this appeal) was filed on the ground that the tenant had not paid or tendered rent with effect from december 1, 1984, and that the tenant had changed the user of the demised premises and had set up a printing press under the name and .....

Padanathil Rugmini Amma Vs. P.K. Abdulla

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)658; AIR1996SC1204; JT1996(1)SC381; 1996(4)KarLJ72; 1996(1)KLT218(SC); 1996(1)SCALE359; (1996)7SCC668; [1996]1SCR651; 1996(1)LC257(SC)

..... the kerala land reforms act 1964 was in operation at the time when he was evicted on 5.4.1966. ..... the respondent, however, contends that although he was evicted in restitution proceedings, he can nevertheless maintain a suit on title because as a lessee he enjoyed certain protection under the land reform legislation in kerala. ..... this section provides as follows :7 : notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 52 or any provision of the transfer of property act, 1882, or any other law, or in any contract, custom, or usage, or in any judgment, decree or order of court, any person in occupation at the commencement of the kerala land reforms (amendment) act, 1969 of the land of another situate in malabar shall be deemed to be a tenant if he or his predecessor-in-interest was continuously in occupation of such land honestly believing himself to be a tenant for not less than two years ..... abdulla, thereupon filed suit being os 288 of 1966 contending that he was not evicted from the suit property pursuant to the restitution proceedings and there was no re-delivery of the suit property to the tarwad. .....

K.C.Chandrasekar. Vs. C.Balasundaram.

Court : Chennai

..... no doubt, the landlord himself clearly and categorically without mincing words in the rcop itself pointed out that the tenant is doing business in selling electrical goods and in such a case, i could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the tenant that the rent controller over stepped his function by giving a finding as though the tenant is not at all doing business in the premises and thereby he would not be affected if eviction is ordered.11. ..... i at once would like to point out that summary proceedings are contemplated under the rent control act, so to say in stricto sensu the rigour of that maxim and the law of pleadings as applicable to the civil suit, cannot be pressed into service. ..... sub-section (8) of section 11 of the kerala buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1965 (2 of 1965) reads thus:"11. ..... animadverting upon the order dated 18.01.2010 passed in rca no.1590 of 2004 by the viii small causes court, chennai, confirming the order dated 16.11.2004 passed in rcop no.1773 of 1999 by the xiv small causes court, chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed.2. .....

Harnamsing Lalsing Vs. Gangaram Itchharam

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (1968)9GLR323

..... if after service of the notice by the landlord the tenant makes an application under section 11(3) before the expiry of a month and thereafter pays or tenders regularly the amount of interim rent specified by the court till the disposal of the suit, the court is bound to presume that the tenant is at the date of the decree ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted ..... 12(3)(b) runs as under:in any other case, no decree for eviction shall be passed in any such suit if on the first day of hearing of the suit or on or before such other date as the court may fix the tenant pays or tenders in court the standard rent and permitted increases then due and thereafter continues to pay or tender in court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the court.. ... ... ... ... ..... has held that the aforesaid observations of the supreme court clearly laid down the procedure to be followed in such contingency and the tenant who had not followed that procedure by inviting the trial judge to determine the amount of standard rent and who did not ask the court to fix the date for payment or tender of the standard rent could not claim protection under section 12(3)(b) if on the date of the first hearing of the suit he was in ..... proceeding on this basis, the court must consider that until the standard rent was fixed there was no occasion for the tenant to make payment or tender of the standard ..... kerala state 1955 .....

P.V.Raveendran Vs. Puthukkudi Muyarikandi Abdul Salam

Court : Kerala

..... 3 of2014o ---------------------------------------------------- dated this the 18th day of february, 2014 judgment ubaid, j.the tenant in the trial court in an eviction proceedings, is aggrieved by the dismissal of his application to receive some documents in evidence. ..... petitioner:petitioner:respodent: p.v.raveendran, aged50years s/o nanu, residing at puthanveettil, samudra metals, maruthonkaraamsom, kallad desom, thottilpalam, post kuttiady, vatakara taluk, kozhikode district, kerala state by advs.sri.b.krishnan sri.r.parthasarathy respondents:respondents:petitioners:1. ..... on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant, we find that the documents can be ordered to be received in the interest of justice, subject to the question of admissibility in evidence. ..... we find that the trial court can be directed to receive the documents, subject to admissibility in evidence, and the respondent/landlord will have to be granted reasonable opportunity to explain the documents, once admitted in evidence. ..... puthukkudi muyarikandi hashim haji,, aged58years s/o bavachi haji, agriculturist residing at thayambadimmal maruthonkaraamsom adukkath desom, kuttiady post vatakara taluk, kozhikode district673101 kerala state. ..... puthukkudi muyarikandi abdul salam,, aged60years s/o bavachi haji, agriculturist, kuttiady amsom oorath desom, kuttiady post, vatakara taluk kozhikode district673101, kerala state.2. .....

K.S.E.B. Vs. Abraham

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR2007Ker12; 2006(4)KLT770

..... before the second suit of the plaintiff can be held to be barred by the same, it must be shown that the second suit is based on the same cause of action on which the earlier suit was based and if the cause of action is the same in both the suits and if in the earlier suit plaintiff had not sued for any of the reliefs available to it on the basis of that cause of action, the reliefs which it had failed to press into service in that suit cannot be subsequently prayed for except with the leave of the court ..... the third defendants contended that the disposal of earth and other materials from the work site was done by the third defendant as per the agreement and at the specific instruction, supervision and direction of the kerala state electricity ..... the government have not initiated any proceedings to evict the ..... a plea is available only in favour of the government and not to the kerala state electricity board or the third defendant, who entered into the agreement for construction of a project with the kerala state electricity board. ..... the defendants in the suit are the kerala state electricity board, the deputy chief engineer, lower periyar project and the national project construction corporation ..... : (2004)7scc650 , the supreme court held that the sine qua non for applicability of order ii rule 2 of the code of civil procedure is that a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action has omitted to sue for some relief without the leave of the court .....

K.S.E.B. Vs. Cheriyan Varghese and ors.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1989Ker198

..... the ease arose out of a proceeding under the kerala buildings (lease and rent control) act, 1965. ..... the supreme court in that decision considered the scope and amplitude of the various sections in the kerala acl and the karnataka act and came to the conclusion that the decision in aundal ammaps case is correct in the light of the scope and content of the provision in the kerala act. ..... though section 48(6) of the karnataka act (as amended) also speaks of the finality of the order of the rent control courl, subjecl to the decision of the revisional court under section 50 in more or less the same terms as in section 18(5) of the kerala acl, the force underlying the words 'shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question' etc. ..... though section 48(6) of the karnataka act (as amended) also speaks of the finality of the order of the rent control court, subject to the decision of the revisionat court under section 50 in more or less the same terms as in section 18(5) of the kerala act, the force underlying the words 'shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question' etc. ..... explanation :-- the appellate authority may while confirming the order of eviction passed by the rent control court, grant an extension of time to the tenant for pulling the landlord in possession of the building. ..... (2) on such appeal being preferred, the appellate authority may order stay of further proceedings in the matter pending decision on the appeal. .....

Gulabibai JaIn Vs. District Munsif, Poonamallec Rent Controller and or ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1969)2MLJ303

..... but, the extraordinary remedy sought for in the writ petition was the issue of a writ of prohibition inhibiting the rent controller from further proceeding with an action before him under section 14 (1) (b) of act xviii of 1960, on the ground that section 14 (1) (b) itself was violative of the purpose enunciated in the preamble to the act namely, 'the prevention of unreasonable eviction of tenants' inter alia ..... , this was enunciated by their lordships of the supreme court in in re kerala education bill) 1957 : [1959]1scr995 , and their lordships further observed on this principle that, when any particular clause leaves any discretion to the government to take any action, it must be understood that such discretion must be exercised for the purpose of advancing the policy enunciated in the preamble. ..... , even if the preamble can be looked into for such a purpose, that does not imply that it would be ' unreasonable ' to evict a tenant within the scope of section 14 (1) (b) of the act. ..... though, broadly speaking, the act gives rights against eviction to tenants, and very valuable rights, it also gives certain rights to landlords to enable them to obtain possession of leased premises under stated contingencies, as those enacted in section 10 (3) (c) ..... is a well-established principle of the judicial interpretation of statutes, that a court may certainly look into the full-length title of an act and its preamble, in order to appreciate the intendment and tenor of the enacted statute. .....