REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

E. Mohanan And Ors. Appellant

V/S

T.P. Aravindakshan Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KOLANDAVELY CHETTIAR V. KOOLAYANA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
V.M. DESHMUKH V. K.M. KOTHARI [REFERRED TO]
SESHANARAYANA RAO V. VENKATESA RAO [REFERRED TO]
FIRM RAJNILAL & CO. V. VITHAL PANDURANG [REFERRED TO]
KOYILERIAN JANAKI VS. RENT CONTROLLER MUNSIFF CANNANORE [REFERRED TO]
SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM and CO LTD VS. VIMALABAI PRABHULAL [REFERRED TO]
GOBIND DASS VS. KULDIP SINGH [REFERRED TO]
B. BALAIAH V. CHANDOOR LACHAIAH [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMAD VS. SINNAMALU AMMA [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL CHINTAMAN MITHARI VS. GANPATRAO RAMCHANDRA POWAR [REFERRED TO]
K BALAKRISHNA MENON VS. DISTRICT JUDGE KOZHIKODE [REFERRED TO]
RAGHAVAN VS. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN THAMPI VS. SANKARADAS [REFERRED TO]
KAMMANCHERI JANAKI VS. KARATTU GOVINDAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
ISMAIL VS. P K KESAVAN [REFERRED TO]
PRATHAPAN VS. P R RAMA WARRIER [REFERRED TO]
THALAYODI RAGHAVAN VS. KOORANTAVITTA KELAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
THANUJA SUNDERDAS VS. SISIRKUMAR RAJ [REFERRED TO]
BIDHUBHUSAN SEN VS. COMMISSIONER PATNA DIVISION [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants, who are the respondents in RCP No. 84, 83 and 85 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur, against whom the orders of eviction were passed and which orders were confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in R.C.A.241, 243 and 240 of 2011, are the revision petitioners herein.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent herein had filed RCP Nos. 59, 61 and 60 of 2005 before the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad. After examination of the parties and witnesses, these cases were transferred to the Rent Control Court, Thrissur, which renumbered the cases as RCP Nos. 83, 84 and 85 of 2011 respectively.

(3.) IN so far as RCP 83/11 is concerned, the landlord sought eviction urging grounds under Sections 11(2), 11(3) and Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. Similarly, RCP 85/11 was filed seeking eviction under Sections 11(2) and 11(3). In these petitions, the landlord contended that he needed the buildings occupied by the tenants for the occupation of his dependent son Gopikrishnan who wanted to start grocery and stationary business in the tenanted premises. In RCP 83/2011, the landlord additionally contented that the first respondent tenant had sub let the building to the second respondent in the petition.

Click here to view full judgment.

E. MOHANAN AND ORS. Vs. T.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address