Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965

29 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

T.K. LATHIKAversusSETH KARSANDAS JAMNADAS

1999 INSC 36731 August 1999Dismissed

The appellant, T.K. Lathika, became the owner of a building by gift deed in 1980 and entered into a fresh lease with the long‑term tenant. She filed an eviction petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on 1 July 1981, before the one‑year moratorium period prescribed in the

K.K. KRISHNANversusM. K. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN

1980 INSC 14130 July 1980Dismissed

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, alleging the tenant had sublet the premises without consent. The Rent Controller and successive courts upheld the eviction. The tenant argued that Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act,

P.K. VIJAYANversusKAMALAKSHI AMMA AND ORS.

1994 INSC 13130 March 1994Dismissed

The landlords filed an eviction petition under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, which the Rent Controller accepted, directing them to sue in civil court. The tenant first sought relief under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, claiming assignment of title as a cultivating t

P. JOHN CHANDY AND CO. (P) LTD.versusJOHN P. THOMAS

2002 INSC 24029 April 2002Dismissed

The appellant, P. John Chandy & Co., was the tenant of premises originally let in 1949 and had sub-let the property on several occasions, including after the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 came into force. The landlord, John P. Thomas, sought eviction under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act, alleging sub

VALIYAVALAPPIL SAROJAKSHAN & ORS.versusSUMALSANKAR GAIKEVADA & ORS.

2017 INSC 29029 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords filed eviction petitions under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 invoking sections 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(iv). The Rent Control Court granted eviction only on the reconstruction ground (11(4)(iv),) and the landlords appealed to the First Appellate Authority, which also allowed eviction

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.versusDILBAHAR SINGH

2014 INSC 99727 August 2014Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The issue was whether the High Court could re‑apprecia

P. KESAVAN(DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusAMMUKUTTY AMMA & ORS.

1987 INSC 35026 November 1987Dismissed

The landlord sought eviction of a tenant who was using a building for non‑residential purposes, claiming a bona‑fide need to occupy the premises himself as a residence. The Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority, the District Judge and the Kerala High Court all upheld the landlord’s claim under Section 11(3) of the K

KIZHAKKAYIL SUHARA AND ORS.versusMANHANTAVIDA ABOOBACKER (D) BY LRS. AND ANR.

2001 INSC 46326 September 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, legal representatives of a deceased tenant, occupied a shop room. The landlords sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises to be used by their daughter and son‑in‑law. The tenants contested, arguing that the

SHYAMARAJU HEGDEversusU. VENKATESHA BHAT & ORS.

1987 INSC 26725 September 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Shyamaraju Hegde appealed to the Supreme Court against a Karnataka High Court order dismissing his revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. The High Court had relied on its own Full Bench decision in M.M. Yaragatti v. Vasant, which hel

G.REGHUNATHANversusK.V. VARGHESE

2005 INSC 37123 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The tenant, G. Reghunathan, leased a room for a jewellery shop under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and subsequently altered the premises without the landlord's consent while also defaulting on rent. The landlord sought eviction on two grounds: non‑payment of rent under Section 11(2) and materi

SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIMversusPRAKASAN & ORS.

2025 INSC 76423 May 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a grandson of the original defendant, was impleaded as a legal heir in execution proceedings after the original defendant died. He later filed an interlocutory application under Order I Rule 10 seeking deletion of his name, claiming he was not a legal heir and that he enjoyed tenancy rights under Section

MADHAVI AMMA & ORS.versusS. PRASANNAKUMARI & ORS.

2013 INSC 18922 March 2013Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and the tenant claimed Kudikidappukaran status under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Rent Controller referred the status question to the Land Tribunal, which held the tenant was only a tenant, not a Kudikidappukara

DAVISversusSEBASTIAN

1999 INSC 34319 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (Davis) owned a building where he ran a hotel‑bar and sought eviction of his tenant (Sebastian), who operated a provision shop, under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming a bona‑fide need for additional accommodation for a jewellery and textile business. The te

HAMEED KUNJUversusNAZIM

2017 INSC 62317 July 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (appellant) owned eight shops and sought eviction of tenants, including the respondent, under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on the ground of bona‑fide need. After a protracted litigation spanning more than a decade, the trial court finally passed an eviction order, which was execu

SESHAMBAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.versusM/S. CHELUR CORPORATION CHELUR BUILDING AND ORS.

2010 INSC 10817 February 2010Disposed off

The owners of a commercial premises in Cochin filed an eviction petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming bonafide personal requirement. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority dismissed the petition, finding no such requirement, and the High Court affirme

RUKMINI AMMA SARADAMMAversusKALL YANI SULOCHANA AND ORS.

1992 INSC 34416 December 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landlady, sought eviction of the tenant on grounds of rent arrears and a claim to demolish the shed. After the Rent Controller ordered eviction only on rent default, the landlady obtained a reversal of the bona fide need finding on appeal, prompting the tenant to file revisions under Section 20 of the

VANIYANKANDY BHASKARANversusMOOLIYIL PADINHJAREKANDY SHEELA

2008 INSC 114614 October 2008Dismissed

The respondent obtained a decree for possession of a suit property in 1990, which was later enforced through execution proceedings in 2004. The appellant, after the execution commenced, filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement and sought an injunction to stay the eviction. The High Court set a

VANNATTANKANDY IBRAYIversusKUNHABDULLA HAJEE

2000 INSC 59713 December 2000Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant of a shop let under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, saw the shop completely destroyed by fire. He rebuilt a new shop on the vacant land without the landlord's consent, prompting the landlord to sue for demolition of the new structure and possession of the land. The trial

C.V. RAJENDRAN AND ANR.versusN.M. MUHAMMED KUNHI

2002 INSC 38413 September 2002Dismissed

The tenants (appellants) challenged a second eviction petition filed by the landlord (respondent) under Section 15(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming the landlord’s bona‑fide requirement for his son. An earlier appellate authority had held that the second petition was not barred by

THANKAMONY AMMA & ORS.versusOMANA AMMA N. & ORS.

2019 INSC 89613 August 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a theatre built on land owned by Sankara Kurup. After his death, his son Viswanatha claimed ownership, while the son‑in‑law Kumara managed the theatre and later claimed tenancy under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The Land Tribunal rejected Kumara’s tenancy claim, finding he was only a manager. The

K. LUBNA & ORS.versusBEEVI & ORS.

2020 INSC 3313 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of three shop rooms, filed an eviction petition against the respondents for non‑payment of rent and unauthorised sub‑letting of one of the rooms. The trial court granted eviction for all three rooms, but the appellate authority limited eviction to two rooms, and the High Court further limited it

SJ. EBENEZERversusVELAYUDHAN AND ORS.

1997 INSC 81311 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (respondent) filed a petition under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction of the tenant (appellant) on the ground that the premises were required bona fide for his own use, alleging that another property he occupied was under imminent threat of acquisitio

VITHALBHAI PVT. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

2005 INSC 13511 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Vithalbhai Pvt. Ltd., the lessor of a lease that expired on 24 June 1984, served a notice to the lessee demanding vacant possession and filed a suit for eviction on 16 April 1984, twelve weeks before the lease term ended. The defendant argued that the suit was premature and not maintainable. The High Court Single Judge

CARONA SHOE CO. LTD. AND ANR.versusK.C. BHASKARAN NAIR

1989 INSC 859 March 1989Dismissed

The appellants, Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. and another, were tenants of a shop that had been let out by a mortgagee who held the property under a mortgage from the owner. After the owner redeemed the mortgage, the mortgagee and a subsequent mortgagee sued to recover possession of the shop, and the trial court ordered evictio

NALAKATH SAINUDDINversusKOORIKADAN SULAIMAN

2002 INSC 2848 July 2002Case Partly allowed

The tenant, Nalakath Sainuddin, held a single tenancy over a shop with two doors and sublet one door to Koorikadan Sulaiman, who later purchased the entire property from the original owners. The landlord filed an eviction suit invoking three grounds under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: arrears

SUDHAKARANversusCORP. OF TRIVANDRUM & ANR.

2016 INSC 5015 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant of a premises in Trivandrum, held a licence to operate a hardware shop that was originally granted with the landlord's written consent in 2001. When the licence expired, the corporation refused renewal because the landlord did not provide fresh consent. The Tribunal for Local Self Government Ins

M/S. SAIT NAGJEE PURUSHOTHAM AND CO. LTD.versusVIMALABAI PRABHULAL AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4784 October 2005Dismissed

A joint Hindu family owned a building that was let to a partnership firm, which later converted into a private limited company in 1948. The landlords, members of the family, sought eviction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 on the grounds of bona‑fide need for business expansion (s.11(3)), u

S.R. BABUversusT.K. VASUDEVAN AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4254 September 2001Disposed off

The landlord, who occupied part of a building, filed an eviction petition against the tenant occupying the remaining part, invoking Sections 11(3), 11(8) and 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Controller rejected the claim under 11(8) and 11(4)(iv) but ordered eviction under

DUNLOP INDIA LIMITEDversusA.P. RAHNA AND ANR.

2011 INSC 3534 May 2011Dismissed

The dispute concerned eviction of Dunlop India Limited from premises leased under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord alleged that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for more than six months without reasonable cause, first from June 1998 and later from September 2001. The ten

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search