https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173210 Where maintainability of a landlord's suit for fixation of rent depends on a preliminary jurisdictional fact, an erroneous finding on that fact may amount to assumption of jurisdiction not vested in the subordinate court. The statutory scheme made the suit maintainable only if the accommodation fell within the post-30 June 1946 category under the rent control law. Because the trial court's finding on the date of construction affected its power to entertain the suit, revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was available. The High Court's interference in revision and setting aside of the decree was upheld. en-us Sat, 05 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:19:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173210 Where maintainability of a landlord's suit for fixation of rent depends on a preliminary jurisdictional fact, an erroneous finding on that fact may amount to assumption of jurisdiction not vested in the subordinate court. The statutory scheme made the suit maintainable only if the accommodation fell within the post-30 June 1946 category under the rent control law. Because the trial court's finding on the date of construction affected its power to entertain the suit, revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was available. The High Court's interference in revision and setting aside of the decree was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 05 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173210