REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

C M Bonny Appellant

V/S

Koshi P John Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PASUPULETI VENKATESWARLU V. THE MOTOR AND GENERAL TRADERS [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI MILLS LIMITED MADURAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INOOME TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
V RAMACHANDRA AYYAR VS. RAMALINGAM CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
ORIENT DISTRIBUTORS VS. BANK OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
M M QUASIM VS. MANOHAR LAL SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
K A ANTHAPPAI VS. C AHAMMED [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR SINGH VS. RATTAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RAWALMAL NARAINDAS AND SONS PARTNERSHIP FIRM VS. B AMARNATH [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SARUP GUPTA VS. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER PAL VS. NAVAL KISHORE BEHAL [REFERRED TO]
NALAKATH SAINUDDIN VS. KORIKADAN SULAIMAN [REFERRED TO]
S SIVASUBRAMANYA IYER VS. S H KRISHNASWAMY [REFERRED TO]
JOHN VS. DISTRICT COURT [REFERRED TO]
SHAJI VARGHESE VS. CHERIAN [REFERRED TO]
FRANCIS VS. SREEDEVI VARASSIAR [REFERRED TO]
RAHMAT ILAHI VS. MOHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN [REFERRED TO]
HARENDRA LAL ROY CHOWDHURI VS. SRIMATI HARI DASI DEBI [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. A. K. SABHAPATHY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners (landlords) in R.C.P. 141/90 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, are the revision petitioners. Eviction of the respondent herein from the petition schedule premises was sought on the ground of arrears of rent under S.11(2)(b) and bona fide own occupation under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Both the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority held that even though the provision of law which was quoted in the Rent Control Petition was S.11(3), the claim of the landlords was really one for additional accommodation for expansion of the business falling under S.11(8) of the Act but disallowed eviction on both grounds. It is aggrieved by the orders rejecting the application for eviction that the landlords have come up in revision.

(2.) We heard Adv. Sri. S.P. Chaly, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Adv. Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent tenant. We also perused the oral and documentary evidence on record.

(3.) Adv. Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas made the following submissions before us in support of the impugned orders :-

Click here to view full judgment.

C M BONNY Vs. KOSHI P JOHN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address