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

1966 Supreme(Ker) 258

V.P.GOPALAN NAMBIYAR
ANNAMMA CHACKO – Appellant
Versus
A. C. MATHEW – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The only point argued in this writ petition is whether the Land Tribunal functioning under the Kerala Act 1 of 1964 has power to restore an application for fixation of fair rent which had been dismissed by it for default on the part of the petitioners. The landlord-respondent who has been aggrieved by an order of restoration passed by the Land Tribunal is the petitioner in this O. P.

2. It was ruled by Vaidialingam J. in O. P. No. 2245 of 1962 that the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Act 4 of 1961 has no jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order. It was also ruled by Mathew J. in Ammad Haji v. Kelu (1966 KLT. 819) that the Land Tribunal functioning under Act 1 of 1964, is not authorised to set aside an ex parte order for fixation of fair rent, under R.182 of the Kerala Agrarian Relations R.1961. These decisions appear to directly cover the point in favour of the petitioner, but counsel for the respondents maintained contra. S.101 of the Act confers certain enumerated powers on the Land Tribunal and leaves others to be prescribed by Rules. The power to set aside an ex parte order is not one of the enumerated powers conferred by the section. R.60 prescribes certain add




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