P.N.Sundara Pandyan V/S B.A.Ibrahim - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Kodagu

CC/1992/21

B.A.Ibrahim - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.N.Sundara Pandyan - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.Ravi Prakash

29 Aug 1992

ORDER

THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Shekar Complex, Mahadevapet, Madikeri-571201(Karnataka)
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1992/21

B.A.Ibrahim						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
P.N.Sundara Pandyan						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Order dt.29/08/1992 The grevience of complainant is to direct the respondent his land lord and owner of a house occupied by the complainant on rent to pay Rs.3000/- that he has spent for repairs of the house. The respondent is pressing for vacation of the house. Hence, the relief. Respondent has contended that the petition is not maintainable as the provision of the Karnataka Rent control Act,1961 are attracted and the Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate. There is force in the contention. Section 3(3)(iii) Sub clause (i) and (ii) and Section 44 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,1961 provide ample scope to urge relief by a tenant including repairs etc before a civil court (vide 1972(1)MLJ.570 AIR 1977(Kar)160-AIR 1987 SC 2117). hence, it is to be held that the dispute here is purely between tenant and land-lord. This Forum cannot decide it. Petition is dismissed with cost of respondent Rs.300/-. sd/- G.Vamdev President sd/- B.A.Hasanabba Member

Order dt.29/08/1992 The grevience of complainant is to direct the respondent his land lord and owner of a house occupied by the complainant on rent to pay Rs.3000/- that he has spent for repairs of the house. The respondent is pressing for vacation of the house. Hence, the relief. Respondent has contended that the petition is not maintainable as the provision of the Karnataka Rent control Act,1961 are attracted and the Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate. There is force in the contention. Section 3(3)(iii) Sub clause (i) and (ii) and Section 44 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act,1961 provide ample scope to urge relief by a tenant including repairs etc before a civil court (vide 1972(1)MLJ.570 AIR 1977(Kar)160-AIR 1987 SC 2117). hence, it is to be held that the dispute here is purely between tenant and land-lord. This Forum cannot decide it. Petition is dismissed with cost of respondent Rs.300/-. sd/- G.Vamdev President sd/- B.A.Hasanabba Member