E.V MATHAI versus SUBORDINATE JUDGE, KOTTAYAM & ORS.

E.V MATHAI versus SUBORDINATE JUDGE, KOTTAYAM & ORS.

By virtue of s. 34(1) of the 1965 Act, proceedings for eviction for subletting that took place under the 1959 Act could be instituted under the corresponding provisions of the 1965 Act. The District Court's power in revision under s. 20 was wide enough to review findings of fact. There was sufficient evidence to conclude subletting had occurred, and concurrent findings by lower courts were not to be disturbed.

Parties
Appellant: E. V. Mathai; Respondents: Subordinate Judge, Kottayam & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 April 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment of Kerala High Court in C.r.p. No. 1482 of 1968
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Subletting, Eviction, Retrospective Operation of Statutes, Jurisdiction in Revision
Tenancy Law Rent Control Subletting Eviction Retrospective Operation of Statutes Jurisdiction in Revision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

E. V. Mathai

Appellant

Subordinate Judge, Kottayam & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment of Kerala High Court in C.r.p. No. 1482 of 1968

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings for eviction under section 11(4) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 could lie for subletting that occurred during the period covered by the repealed 1959 Act
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge exceeded jurisdiction in revision under section 20 of the 1965 Act by disturbing concurrent findings of fact

Ratio Decidendi

By virtue of s. 34(1) of the 1965 Act, proceedings for eviction for subletting that took place under the 1959 Act could be instituted under the corresponding provisions of the 1965 Act. The District Court's power in revision under s. 20 was wide enough to review findings of fact. There was sufficient evidence to conclude subletting had occurred, and concurrent findings by lower courts were not to be disturbed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs