Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965

10 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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