KUNHI RAMAN Vs. LALJI P. KETHIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was heard by me on a former occasion and 1 proceeded on the basis that the claim of the landlord for eviction of the respondent from his holding will have to be considered in the light of the provisions contained in S.11(4) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959, Act XVI of 1959.

(2.) At that time, Mr. V. P. Gopalan Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that on a strict construction of S.11(4) it will be seen that there is nothing to indicate in order to enable a landlord to ask for eviction that the subletting must have occured after the coming into force of Kerala Act XVI of 1959. At this stage I may mention that both the Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority have agreed with the contentions of the landlord and granted the eviction as asked for by him. But the learned District Judge in exercise of his revisional powers has disagreed with the views expressed by the subordinate authorities. The learned District Judge was of the view that the provisions of the Madras Act in question must be considered to be contained in a temporary enactment and as the temporary enactment itself has ceased to be in force by the repeal made by the Kerala Act XVI of 1959 during the pendency of the proceedings the landlord has no further rights to rely upon the provisions of that statute. Therefore, the learned District Judge proceeds on the basis that the claim of the landlord will have to be considered only under S.11(4) of the Kerala Act.

(3.) In considering this question, the learned District Judge is of the view that on a construction of the said S.11(4) it must be held that unless there is a subletting after the coming into force of Kerala Act XVI of 1959, no right is recognised in the landlord to ask for eviction and in this view the learned District Judge reversed the orders of both the appellate authority as well as the Rent Controller.