E.V MATHAI versus SUBORDINATE JUDGE, KOTTAYAM & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 345 · Decided: 21-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
E. V.MATHAI 
v. 
SUBORDINATE JUDGE, KO'ITAYAM & ORS. 
April 21, 1969 
(1. c. SHAH AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Kera/a Buildings _(Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1959-Repealed by 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) 
Act 
1965-Subletting 
of 
leased premises during period covered by old Act-Proceedings for evic-
tion under s. 11(4) of new Act whether could lie-Jurisdiction of District 
Judge in Revision under a. 20 of 1965 Act. 
In 1963 the appellant took certain premises on lease. At that time the 
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959 was in force. After 
the coming into force of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) 
Act, 1965 the landlora brought an application before the Rent Control 
Court of Kottayam for the eviction of the appellant on two grounds, 
namely, (I) that be requited the premises for his own use and occupation, 
(2) that the appellant had sublet the premises. 
The Controller decided 
against the landlord on both grounds. In appeal the Subordinate Judge 
held that there was no subleting but that the landlord's personal require-
ment was genuine and on the later ground ordered eviction df the appel-
lant from part of the premises in question. Both parties went in revision 
to the District Jud~e under s. 20 of the Act. The District Judge upheld 
the order for evicbon of the appellant on the ground of subleting. In 
revision under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court re-
fused to intetfere whereupon the appellant by special leave came to this 
Court. 
The appellant contended : ( 1) that it was provided in s. 11 ( 1) of the 
1965 Act that proceedin!!IS for the eviction of tenants could be under the 
procedure of the new Act only; (2) that s. 11(4) provided for eviction 
of tenants only in respect of sub-letting after the coming into force of the 
new Act whereas the alleged sub-letting by the appellant took place before; 
(3) that though s. 34(1) provided for the application of s. 4 of the Inter-
pretation and General aauses Act, 1125, the proviso to s. 34(1) showed 
a contrary intention ( 4) that there was no "corresponding provision'' in 
the 1959 Act within the meaning of s. 34(1) of the new Act; (5) that 
in any case the District Judge in revision under s. 20 could not sit a.s a 
court of appeal and disturb the concurrent finding of fact by the Rent 
Controller and the Subordinate Judge that there was no sub-letting of the 
premises by the appellant. 
' 
HELD : (i) The contention that s. 4 of the Interpretation and General 
Clabses Act, 1125 was not applicable because a different intention appear-
ed from s. 34(1) of the Act of 1965 could not be accepted. The proviso 
to s. 34( I) laid doWn that a legal proceeding which could have been insti-
tuted, continued or enforced under the repealed Act of 1959 may be insti-
tuted under the coaesponding provisions 
of the new Act. 
The corres-
ponding provision in the 1959 Act was s. 11 ( 4) 
which provided for 
eviction in case of sub-letting by the tenant, without the consent of the 
landlord. 
"To car.respond" means to "be in harmony with or be similar, 
analogous to"; 
It does not mean to "be identical with". 
The·refore by 
virtue of s. 34 (I) the appellant was liable to be evicted after the new Act 
as well. [348 H-349 Fl 
(ii) The words of s. 20 of the Act of 1965 are much wider than those 
in s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under s. 20(1) the District 
Court is empowered to call for and examine the records relating to any 
346 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 1 SC.R. 
ord« passed or proceedings taken under the Act for the purpose of satis-
fying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or pro-
ceedinl!'I asd pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. 
On the 
words of the section it could not be held that a revision is limited to a 
mere question of jurisdiction. In any event the order ot the District 
Jud(;e was confirmed by the High Court and this Court will not examine 
whether the revision was properly heard and disposed of by the District 
Judge. [349 H-350 BJ 
(iii) On the facts there was sufficient evidence to hold that there was 
sub-letting of part of the premise•. This Court will also not interfere with 
the concurrent findings elf the District Judge 
and the 1-li&h Court in this 
rrgard. [350 C-D) 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 275 of 
1969. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 5, 1968 of the Keral

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.