H V MATHAI Vs. SUBORDINATE JUDGE KOTTAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the Kerala High Court dismissing a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure from an order of the District Judge of Kottayam.

(2.) The facts are as follows. The appellant before us was a monthly tenant of four houses covered by a single tenancy at a rent of Rs. 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 independent agreements between the parties and as such allowed eviction of the tenants from two only out of the four properties. Both parties went in revision to the District Judge, Kottayam under Section 20 of the Kerala Act 2 of 1965. It is pertinent to note here that the Kerala Act of 1959 was repealed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and the new Act came into force on 1st April, 1965. The petition for eviction was filed on August 31, 1965 after the coming into force of the new Act. The District Judge held that the landlord had not proved that he bona fide required the premises let for his personal use and occupation but disagreeing with the subordinate Judge he held that there had been in fact sub-letting and on the basis thereof ordered eviction of the tenants from all the four buildings. The tenant went up to the Kerala High Court by way of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court found that no grounds had been made out for interference with the order of the District Judge and as such dismissed the petition with costs.

(3.) The main point urged by Mr. Daphtary counsel for the appellant was that assuming that there was a sub-letting by the tenant a proceeding for eviction would only lie under the provisions for the Act of 1965. Omitting the provisos, section 11 (1) of the Act provided that: