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

1985 Supreme(Ker) 178

FATHIMA BEEVI
PATHUMMA BEEVI – Appellant
Versus
LONAPPAN – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The revision petitioner is the landlord-petitioner in proceedings for eviction pending before the Rent Controller. Trichur. The order of the Revisional Authority setting aside the order u/S. 12 (3) confirmed in appeal is under attack in this revision.

2. The District Judge in setting aside the order has directed the Rent Control Court to adjudicate afresh on the applicability of S.12(3) after giving a proper opportunity to the revision petitioner to show cause or to deposit the arrears that the Rent Controller finds as due at that time. with the reservation that if no deposit is made or if no proper cause is shown within the time to be given by the Rent Control Court. the order shall revive.

3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner this order of the Revisional Authority is a wrong exercise of jurisdiction because the order passed by the Rent Controller u/S. 12 (3) of the Rent Control Act and upheld by the Appellate Authority is one unassailable under law and on the facts of the case. It is pointed out that the two requirements for passing an order under that section. viz.. the default on the part of the tenant to deposit the admitted arrears and












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