Saving clause and wider revisional power upheld eviction where evidence showed exclusive third-party occupation and subletting.

A repealed rent-control law's saving clause preserved eviction proceedings under the 1965 Act where the new Act contained corresponding provisions that were analogous, not identical, so the eviction action remained maintainable. The revisional jurisdiction under the 1965 Act was wider than section 115 CPC and allowed scrutiny of the legality, regularity and propriety of the subletting finding, so the District Court could reappraise that issue. On the evidence, exclusive occupation by a third party, a name board, daily rent payment and a telephone installation supported an inference of parting with possession, so subletting was proved and the eviction order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether proceedings for eviction, instituted after the commencement of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, could be maintained by reason of the saving provision in relation to the repealed 1959 Act; (ii) whether the District Court had revisional power to reappraise the finding on subletting; and (iii) whether the material on record established subletting.

Issue (i): whether proceedings for eviction, instituted after the commencement of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, could be maintained by reason of the saving provision in relation to the repealed 1959 Act.

Analysis: The saving provision in section 34(1) of the 1965 Act preserved investigations, legal proceedings and remedies that could have been instituted, continued or enforced under the repealed 1959 Act. The expression "corresponding provisions" was held to mean provisions that are analogous or in harmony, not identical. On that construction, the eviction proceeding based on subletting remained maintainable under the new Act notwithstanding the repeal of the earlier Act.

Conclusion: The proceeding was not barred and could be entertained under the 1965 Act.

Issue (ii): whether the District Court had revisional power to reappraise the finding on subletting.

Analysis: Section 20 of the 1965 Act conferred a wider revisional jurisdiction than section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It empowered the District Court to examine the legality, regularity and propriety of the order or proceedings and to pass such order as it thought fit. That width justified scrutiny of the evidentiary finding on subletting.

Conclusion: The District Court was competent to examine the finding on subletting in revision.

Issue (iii): whether the material on record established subletting.

Analysis: The room was in the exclusive occupation of a lawyer, who had a name board, paid rent on a daily basis, and had installed a telephone. These circumstances supported the inference that possession had been parted with and that the arrangement was not a mere licence.

Conclusion: Subletting was proved on the evidence.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order was sustained and the tenant's challenge failed on all substantial grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A repealed rent-control statute's saving clause can preserve eviction proceedings under analogous corresponding provisions of the new Act, and a revisional court may uphold a finding of subletting where the evidence shows exclusive possession by a third party.

---