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

2000 Supreme(Ker) 466

S.SANKARASUBBAN, A.LEKSHMIKUTTY
Abdul Khadir – Appellant
Versus
Ouseph Mathai – Respondent


Judgment :-

S. Sankarasubban, J.

All these Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing the petitioners' applications under S.11(2)(c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners are the tenants. The landlord in these cases applied for eviction on the basis of arrears of rent and reconstruction. Eviction was ordered on both these grounds.

2. The tenants challenged the order of eviction before" the Revisional Authority under S.20 of the Act. At that time, revision lay before the District Court. Against the order of the District Court, revisions were filed before the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the matter was pending before the High Court, the Supreme Court held in Aundal Ammal 's Case (1987(1) KLT 53) that a second revision will not lie before the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the Supreme Court held that a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India will lie to the High Court challenging the order of the Revisional Authorities under S.20 of the A















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