Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.36 seconds)Section 20 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Sankaran Pillai(Dead) By Lrs vs V.P.Venuguduswami & Ors on 29 July, 1999
In Sankaran Pillai v. V.P. Venuguduswami [(1999)
6 SCC 396] the Apex Court held that, it is for the tenant to show
sufficient cause and not for the Rent Control Court or the Appellate
Authority, as the case may be, to issue any show cause notice
calling upon the tenant to show cause why an order of eviction
shall not be passed.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Ubaiba vs Damodaran on 15 April, 1999
In Ubaiba v. Damodaran [(1999) 5 SCC 645] the
Apex Court considered the exercise of revisional power by the High
Court, under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1965, in the context of an issue as to whether the
relationship of landlord-tenant existed or not. It was urged that
whether such relationship existed would be a jurisdictional fact.
41
R.C.Rev.No.32 of 2022
Relying on the decision in Rukmini Amma Saradamma it was
contended that, however wide the jurisdiction of the revisional
court under Section 20 of the Act may be, it cannot have
jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own
finding upsetting the finding arrived at by the appellate authority.
The Apex Court held that, though the revisional power under
Section 20 of the Act may be wider than Section 115 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 it cannot be equated even with the second
appellate power conferred on the civil court under the Code.
Therefore, notwithstanding the use of the expression 'propriety' in
Section 20 of the Act, the revisional court will not be entitled to re-
appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place
of the conclusion of the appellate authority. On examining the
impugned judgment of the High Court, in the light of the aforesaid
ratio, the Apex Court held that the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction by re-appreciating the evidence and in coming to the
conclusion that the relationship of landlord-tenant did not exist.
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs Dilbahar Singh on 27 August, 2014
In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v.
Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78] a Five-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court considered the revisional powers of the High Court
42
R.C.Rev.No.32 of 2022
under Rent Acts operating in different States. After referring to the
law laid down in Rukmini Amma Saradamma the Apex Court
reiterated that even the wider language of Section 20 of the Kerala
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 does not enable the
High Court to act as a first or a second court of appeal.
Thankamony Amma vs Omana Amma N. on 13 August, 2019
44. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions
referred to supra, it cannot be said that the order of summary
eviction passed by the Rent Control Court under Section 12(3) of
the Act, which now stands confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is
either perverse or patently illegal or it suffers from any legal
infirmity warranting interference under Section 20 of the Act.
Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the order of eviction
concurrently passed by the authorities below.