Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.41 seconds)

M.R.Martin vs M.R.Rajendran Nair on 9 September, 2021

In Thomas John v. Kochammini Amma [1991 (1) KLT 99], interpreting the provision contained in Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gokal Chand, a Division Bench of this Court held that, an order passed on an application to set aside the report of the commissioner and to appoint a fresh commissioner is only a procedural one and does not affect the rights of any party.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

Family Optics vs Agro Manures And Chemicals (India) Pvt ... on 17 September, 2021

In Thomas John v. Kochammini Amma [1991 (1) KLT 99], interpreting the provision contained in Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gokal Chand, a Division Bench of this Court held that, an order passed on an application to set aside the report of the commissioner and to appoint a fresh commissioner is only a procedural one and does not affect the rights of any party.
Kerala High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A Narendran - Full Document

Mustafa Haji vs Umbichi on 2 July, 2004

The reasoning of the Division Bench in Thomas's case (supra) cannot have any universal application, but depending upon the facts of each case. So far as this case is concerned we are convinced that non-examination of the son is not fatal to the petition. Landlord has specifically pleaded that his son has no other avocation. They have no other building of their own and the son is dependent on the father for conducting business in the tenanted premises. We are therefore in agreement with the reasoning of the Rent Control Court. Consequently the order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and that of the Rent Control Court would stand restored. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to grant time to the tenant upto 30.9.2004 for vacating the premises on condition that he would file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Rent Control Court within one month stating that he would vacate the premises within the aforesaid time and that he would pay arrears of rent if any, and also future rent.

Mohammed Salim vs Habeeb & Company on 14 March, 2002

But it dismissed the appeal as no appeal is maintainable in procedural matters in view of the decision in Thomas John v. Kochammini Amma (1991 AIR Kerala 132), Ulahannan Kurian v. Ipe Thomas (1985 KLT 529), Sumathi v. Devasan (1991 (1) KLT 453) and the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarlal v Shankarlal (AIR 1965 SC 507), Therefore, this Writ Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Challenging the correctness of the order of the Rent Control Authority.
Kerala High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 5 - J B Koshy - Full Document

Ratheesh Kumar vs Jithendra Kumar on 22 March, 2005

Another Division Bench of this Court in Thomas John v. Kochammini Amma, 1994(2) KLT571, also took the view with respect to establishing the bonafide need in a Rent Control Petition for eviction of a tenant. It was held that when the need alleged is that of the landlord himself for his own occupation and he approaches the Rent Control Court with a request for eviction, it goes without saying that the need has to be established by him by appropriate evidence. Bona fide, means the state of mind. That state can be manifested only by the person who entertains a desire to have the building for his own occupation, None of the persons who need the building has chosen to speak about his need. It was held that it could not therefore be said that either the landlord has established the need for own occupation or that the need alleged was bonafide.
1   2 3 Next