REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KUNJAMMA Appellant

V/S

M.Raveendran Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED V. DILBAHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL RANI VS. NAUBAT RAI AHLUWALIA [REFERRED TO]
PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU VS. MOTOR AND GENERAL TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
SHANTILAL THAKORDAS VS. CHIMANLAL MAGANLAL TELWALA [REFERRED TO]
HASMAT RAI VS. RAGHUNATH PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
PUKHRAJ JAIN VS. PADMA KASHYAP [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. KESHO RAM [REFERRED TO]
RUKMINI AMMA SARADAMMA VS. KALLYANI SULOCHANA [REFERRED TO]
BABA KASHINATH BHINGE VS. SAMAST LINGAYAT GAVALI [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESHWAR PRASAD VS. PRADUMANJU AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
UBAIBA VS. DAMODARAN [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SARUP GUPTA VS. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
T SIVASUBRAMANIAM VS. KASINATH PUJARI [REFERRED TO]
GAYA PRASAD VS. PRADEEP SRIVASTAVA [REFERRED TO]
DEENA NATH VS. POORAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
KIZHAKKAYIL SUHARA VS. MANHANTAVIDA ABOOBACKER D [REFERRED TO]
G C KAPOOR VS. NAND KUMAR BHASIN [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA BAI VS. NARAYAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP RAI TANWANI VS. UTTAM CHAND [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH AGRAWAL DEAD VS. DHANRAJI DEVI DEAD [REFERRED TO]
ADIL JAMSHED FRENCHMAN VS. SARDAR DASTUR SCHOOL TRUST [REFERRED TO]
MAGANLAL KISHANLAL GODHA VS. NANSAHEB UDDHAORAO GADEWAR [REFERRED TO]
SHESHAMBAL VS. CHELUR CORPORATION CHELUR BUILDING [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SALAM VS. SEBASTIAN [REFERRED TO]
NALAKATH SAIDALI HAJI VS. KALLUPARAMBAN MUSTHAFA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
M.P. RENUKACHARYA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
K. AMMU AND ORS. VS. NAFEESA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
THANKAMONY AMMA VS. OMANA AMMA N. [REFERRED TO]
D. SASI KUMAR VS. SOUNDARARAJAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the legal heirs of Sakariya, who was arrayed as the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.7 of 2008 filed by the respondent herein-landlord before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Kayamkulam, a petition under Ss. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction of the tenant from the petition schedule shop rooms. The landlord filed RCP on 7/11/2008, at the age of 73 years. Going by the averments in the RCP, the petition schedule shop rooms bearing Nos.34 and 35 in Ward No.XIII of Kayamkulam Muncipality belong to the landlord by virtue of partition deed No.2032 of 1957 dtd. 30/12/1957. The petition schedule shop rooms are part of a large building consisting of 14 rooms. In terms of a partition deed, out of the 14 rooms, the landlord got 4 rooms. Out of the 4 rooms, 2 rooms have already been disposed of. Now, what remains is the petition schedule shop rooms. The tenant defaulted payment of the monthly rent of Rs.1,000.00 for the last five years. The landlord is a doctor by profession, who intends to start a consulting centre at Kayamkulam. Other than the petition schedule shop rooms, no other rooms are available with the landlord for the said purpose. The landlord is having sufficient financial background. He bona fide needs the petition schedule shop rooms for the above purpose.

(2.) In the RCP, the original tenant entered appearance and filed an objection. Paragraph 3 of the objection reads thus;

(3.) During the pendency of the Rent Control Petition, the tenant died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 7. On the side of the landlord PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. On the side of the tenants, Exts.B1 to B7 were marked. The wife of the original tenant was examined as CW1 and CW2 and CW3 were examined on their side. The report and mahazar prepared by the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Ext.C1. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record, the Rent Control Court, by the order dtd. 19/6/2015, dismissed the RCP, holding that the landlord is not entitled to an order of eviction under Ss. 11(2)(b) or 11(3) of the Act.

Click here to view full judgment.

KUNJAMMA Vs. M.RAVEENDRAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address