1969 (4) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....our houses covered by a single tenancy at a rent of ₹ 250 granted in 1953. The landlord filed a petition in the Rent Control Court of Kottayam for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he required the premises for his personal use and occupation, and, secondly, that the tenant was guilty of sub-letting and as such not entitled to protection under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. The Controller held against the landlord on both the points. On appeal being preferred therefrom, the Subordinate Judge held that there was no sub letting by the tenant but the landlord required the premises for his personal use and occupation. He however found that two of the buildings formed the subject matter of separate and inde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this Act.' Sub-s. (4) of the section however allowed the landlord to apply for eviction on the ground of subletting. The relevant portion of this sub-section runs as follows : "(4) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building,- (i)if the tenant after the commencement of this Act, without the consent of the landlord, transfers his right under the lease, or sublets the entire buildings or any portion thereof if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so; or (ii) to (v) Counsel urged that whatever may have been the provision under the Act of 1959 the proceedings by the landlord h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ny enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or (d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed." It was argued by Mr. Daphtary that s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be similar, analogous to'. It does not mean to "be identical with" and therefore the relevant provisions of s. 34(1) of the Act of 1965 must be held to be a provision corresponding to s. 11(4) of the Act of 1959. Our attention was drawn to the short notes of a judgment of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 2653 of 1967 dated 4th October 1967, as given in Short Notes to Part 1, The Kerala Law Times, 1968. We find ourselves unable to accept the reasoning as given in the said Short Notes. Mr. Daphtary raised a further contention that under the express words of sub-s. (I) of s. 11 of the Act of 1965 the operation of any other law including the Act of 1959 was excluded. We do not think that is the proper construction to be put on the w....