Kuriakose Kurian vs Saramma Chacko And Ors. on 12 November, 1963
Placing reliance on the reasoning of the Full Bench in Kurien's case, supra, (1964 KLT 1) the Division Bench in Bava Cherian's case, held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)E. Palanisamy vs Palanisamy (D) By Lrs & Ors on 31 October, 2002
Statute while conferring power on the Rent Control Court has used only affirmative words which stand at a weaker footing than negative words. We have to interpret the provisions of Section 11(2)(c) taking into consideration the object and purpose of the Act. It is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that the expression used should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they shall best harmonise with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the legislation. Apex Court in E. Palanisamy v. Palanisamy, (2003) 1 SCC 123, held that the Rent Control legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants, at the same time,- the benefits conferred on the tenants through a relevant statute could be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the statutory provisions.
Section 18 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(Bava C.) Vythelinga Mudaliar And Ors. vs R. Mahadeva Iyer And Ors. on 27 August, 1924
Placing reliance on the reasoning of the Full Bench in Kurien's case, supra, (1964 KLT 1) the Division Bench in Bava Cherian's case, held as follows:
Kadamkothu Valappil Sreedharan vs Keereerakath Muhammed Kunhi on 14 November, 1977
6. Later another Division Bench of this Court headed by Justice Balakrishna Eradi in Sreedharan v. Muhammed Kunhi, 1978 KLT 20, followed the decision in Cheriyan v. Mahadeva Iyer, 1971 KLT 199, and held as follows:
Manoharan vs Narayana Menon on 29 November, 2002
In Manoharan v. Narayana Menon, 2003 (1) KLT 538, following the earlier Division Bench decision in Rabi Umma's case, supra, 1992 (1) KLT 700, Division Bench of this Court held that the Rent Control Court can extend the period only once. It was also held that Section 23(1)(i) has to be read subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed that is within the time prescribed statutorily under Section 11(2)(c), that is, one month and such further period as the Rent Control Court may in Us discretion allow.