George v. Shaju
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court set aside the appellate authority's order rejecting Section 11(8) grounds and remanded the matter to determine the necessity of expelling personal effects under Section 11(10), while confirming the eviction order for rent arrears.
What did the court decide?
Eviction for arrears confirmed with time to vacate; eviction under Section 11(8) remanded to Appellate Authority to decide on Section 11(10) proviso before execution.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932
RCRev..No. 164 of 2010 (E) ------------------------------RCA.82/2004 of THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, IRINJALAKUDA RCP.33/2003 of ADDL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT
GEORGE, S/O.AKKARAKARAN VAREED, THEKKE ANGADI, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN SMT.AMBILY (PREMKUMAR)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/PETITIONERS :
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 11(8) on additional accommodation or Section 11(3) on bona fide need applies where the landlord seeks to consolidate business spaces.
Whether the proviso to Section 11(10) regarding expulsion of personal effects applies to eviction under Section 11(8).
The applicability of Section 11(2)(b) regarding arrears of rent when a statutory intimation notice was not served.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
George
- petitioner
Shaju
- petitioner
Baiju
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court