<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1986 (12) TMI 384 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275325</link>
    <description>The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 was treated as a self-contained code for eviction matters, providing an original forum before the Rent Control Court, an appeal under Section 18, and a revision under Section 20. Reading Section 18(5) with Section 20, the statutory scheme showed that the appellate decision was final except for the revision expressly provided by the Act. Once that statutory revision was exercised, a further revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was inconsistent with legislative intent and excluded by necessary implication, leaving the High Court without revisional jurisdiction on that footing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2018 15:02:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=536173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (12) TMI 384 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275325</link>
      <description>The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 was treated as a self-contained code for eviction matters, providing an original forum before the Rent Control Court, an appeal under Section 18, and a revision under Section 20. Reading Section 18(5) with Section 20, the statutory scheme showed that the appellate decision was final except for the revision expressly provided by the Act. Once that statutory revision was exercised, a further revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was inconsistent with legislative intent and excluded by necessary implication, leaving the High Court without revisional jurisdiction on that footing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>