Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)
Puthanpurayil Rajan vs Kotheri Dileep Kumar on 27 April, 2010 cites

Vannattankandy Ibrayi vs Kunhabdulla Hajee on 13 December, 2000

This Court relying on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in Vannattankandy Ibrayi v. Kunhabdulla Hajee {AIR 2003 SC 4453) held that, since it has been shown that a portion of the tenanted premises was in existence, a petition for eviction under the Rent Control Act would be maintainable. However, the said decisions cannot advance the case of the tenants in the present case for the reason that the question raised herein is totally different, relating to the scope of first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

George Varghese vs V. Cherian on 17 January, 2008

24. It is the further case of the tenant that the land lord could have utilised other vacant land owned by him to make the proposed construction. In RCR Nos: 439, 440 & 441/2005 it is contended that the rest of the plot lying vacant could be utilised for making the new construction. In RCR 206/2009 the contention is RCR Nos: 439,440,441/05 & 206/09 18 that the vacant land behind the tenanted premises could be utilised for constructing a residential house for the landlady. It is fairly well settled that it is not for the tenant to dictate as to how the landlord should satisfy his need. The landlord is the best Judge of his need and it is for him to decide how best to satisfy his need. It is not open to the tenant to contend that the landlord should satisfy his need by utilising the vacant land available behind the tenanted premises. Rejecting a similar contention, another division Bench of this Court has in George Varghese v. Ammini Cherian {1995(2) KLT 763} has observed as follows:-
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - K T Sankaran - Full Document
1