Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 54 (0.48 seconds)Section 14 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965
Section 20 in The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Nalakath Sainuddin vs Koorikadan Sulaiman on 8 July, 2002
Sainuddin (supra), the Court had an occasion to deal with
the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
(para-8), which are similar to the ones with which we are
concerned. Landlord's petition for ejectment stood allowed
of
only on limited grounds to which also there was no
challenge by him. However, the High Court, in the course of
rt
its revisional jurisdiction, even in the absence of any
petition filed by the landlord, passed orders also on the
grounds which stood rejected by the Controller. Challenge
laid by the tenant stood repelled by the apex Court in the
following terms:-
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia vs Board Of Trustees, Port Of Mumbai & Anr on 13 January, 2004
In fairness to the learned counsel, I must refer to
rt
the decisions reported in Gogula Gurumurthy & others vs.
Kurimeti Ayyappa, (1975) 4 SCC 458 and Jamshed Hormusji
Wadia vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai & another,
(2004) 3 SCC 214 on the issue in hand. But both of them on
given facts, are inapplicable as none of them specifically
deal with the ambit, scope and power of the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court under the Rent Control
legislations of the States/land.
Sri Saibaba Cloth Emporium, Adoni vs Kolli Sanjeevamma And Another on 28 July, 1989
21. I need not deal with each one of the decisions
separately. Certain High Courts have held the provisions of
Order 41 Rule 22 CPC to be made applicable whereas others
of
have held only principles analogous thereof to be
applicable. Much emphasis was
rt laid on Sri Saibaba Cloth
Emporium, Adoni vs. Kolli Sanjeevamma & another, AIR
1991 Andhra Pradesh 106 wherein, view taken in Mahaboob
Bi vs. Alvala Lachmiah, AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 314; Jia
Lal vs. Mohan Lal, AIR 1960 J & K 22; Moti Ram vs. Suraj
Bhan, AIR 1960 SC 655; and Pattammh vs. Krishnaswami
Iyer, AIR 1928 Mad 794, stands affirmed. If one were to
carefully peruse the judgment, one would find that the
Court has specifically not held the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure applicable to the revisional jurisdiction
under the Act. In fact, it specifically quoted the view
expressed by K. V. Gopal Krishnan Nair, J. holding that
though the scope of Order 41 Rule 22 would not extend to
revisional jurisdiction yet, the High Court in exercise of its
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:30:17 :::HCHP
17
revisional jurisdiction would have sufficient powers to
entertain the question which may be raised by the
.
Union Of India vs Ibrahim Uddin & Anr on 17 July, 2012
evidence sought to be led, apart from being factually
incorrect would have no bearing on the outcome of the
case. The tenant cannot be allowed to reopen the case
afresh for filling up the lacunae. This court does not find the
of
evidence sought to be brought on record necessary for
adjudication of the controversy in issue, as such, in the light
rt
of the ratio of law laid down by the apex Court in Union of
India vs. Ibrahim Uddin & another, (2012) 8 SCC 148, the
application is dismissed.