SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 722

FAIZAN UDDIN, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Mukri Gopalan – Appellant
Versus
Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker – Respondent


Advocates:
B.V.DIPAK, E.M.S.ANAM, G.Prakash, G.V.IYER, R.F.NARIMAN

JUDGMENT

MAJMUDAR, J.:—In this appeal by special leave a short but an interesting question falls for determination. It is to the effect whether the appellate authority constituted under S.18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) has power to condone the delay in the filing of appeal before it under the said section. Majority of the Kerala High Court in the case of Jokkim Fernandez v. Amina Kunhi Umma, AIR 1974 Kerala 162, has taken the view that the appellate authority has no such powers. Following the said decisions Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by its judgment and order under appeal has dismissed the revision application moved by the appellant herein whose appeal before the appellate authority was dismissed as time barred and the application for condonation of delay was created to be not maintainable before the appellate authority.

2. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may now be looked at. The appellant is a tenant occupying the suit premises belonging to respondent landlord. The respondent filed Rent Control Petition No.117/92 before the Rent Control Court, Kannur, Kerala State, seeking evict
















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top