Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965

    V.M Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka And Others

    Order

    1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

    2. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground of sub-letting. When the matter was taken up by the tenants in appeal, the Appellate Authority confirmed the same. Thereafter the tenants filed a revision before the High Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, which has been allowed by the impugned order and judgments rendered by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority have been set aside and claim for eviction dismissed. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

    3. From a bare perusal of the order of the High Court, it would appear that it has reappreciated the evidence and come to the conclusion different from the trial court as well as the appellate court and held that the plaintiff failed to prove the ground of sub-letting. The High Court has nowhere stated that the finding of fact recorded by the original authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority were perverse in any manner. It has not been even stated that the material evidence has not been considered by the two courts of fact or the evidence adduced by the parties have been misread in any manner. This being the position, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the orders passed by the original authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. As the revision application was concluded by concurrent finding of fact recorded by the original authority as well as the Appellate Authority, no interference by the High Court was called for. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was not justified in allowing the revision application.

    4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and revision application filed before it is dismissed and order of the Appellate Authority confirming the order passed by the original authority is restored. The respondents are granted time till 31-7-2007 to vacate the premises in question upon filing usual undertaking within four weeks from today.

    5. No costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    V.M Mohan v. Prabha Rajan Dwarka And Others
    (Apr 26, 2006)