Basheer v. Ashili Biju
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court affirmed the eviction of a tenant under Section 11(3). The tenant proved bona fide need for consultancy while the tenant-in-opposition failed to prove his income from the premises or non-availability of other shop space.
What did the court decide?
Revision petitioner given eight months to vacate upon payment of arrears and filing of affidavit undertaking.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN
THURSDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940
RCRev..No. 1 of 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 1/2016 DATED 30.11.2017 of THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY,KALPETTA
AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 4/2014 DATED 10.12.2015 of THE RENT CONTROL COURT (MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE), SULTHAN BATHERI
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
BASHEER, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 43 YEARS, AMBALAMUTTATH VEEDU, MEENANGADI POST, PURAKKADI AMSOM DESOM, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the need for eviction projected by the tenant is bona fide.
Whether the respondent displaced tenant is entitled to protection under the second proviso to Section 11(3).
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Basheer, S/o. Muhammed
- respondent
Ashli Biju
Coram
K. Harilal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court