Decided on April 06,1955

VARGHESE Appellant
MOIDEEN Respondents


- (1.) Clause.15 -- Notice to the parties in these matters is necessary and it is advisable to pronounce the order as far as possible in the place where they reside Important Para(s):10 BUILDINGS (Lease and Rent Control) ORDER, 1950 (T.C.) -- Clause.8(1) -- Under Sub Clause.(1) of Clause.8, the tenant would have been entitled to deposit the rent with the Ernakulam Municipality, the authority notified by the Government, only if there was a refusal by the landlord Important Para(s):4 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -- Art.227 -- The absence of a finding on a crucial question is a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings -- The Appellate Authority either had to endorse the finding of the Rent Controller or to differ from it -- As he has not chosen to adopt either of the two courses, the order passed by him has to be quashed Important Para(s):9 Advocates: K. T. Thomas; K. S. Sebastian; Manual T. Paikeday; V. P. Joseph; For Petitioner K. Achutha Menon; R. Subramonian; For 2nd Respondent T. K. Govindankutty Menon; M. Raghava Menon; For 4th Respondent V. Rama Shenoy; For State JUDGMENT Travancore Cochin High Court
(2.) This is a petition by the tenant of House No. 141 of the Eighth ward (formerly House No.247) and later House No.258 of the fifth ward) of the Ernakulam Municipality under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution and the main prayer in the petition is for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichur (Ext. E) allowing the Rent Control Appeal, No.23 of 1953. The appeal was by the landlord whose petition for eviction, R.C.P. No.377 of 1951 was dismissed by the Rent Controller, by his order dated the 18th March 1953 (Ext. D).
(3.) Eviction was sought on the sole ground of default in the payment of rent, and after discussing the evidence the Rent Controller said: Thus on going through the whole evidence in this case I do not find my way to uphold the contention of the petitioner that the counter petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent. On the other hand what appears to me is that, when the counter petitioner took steps for getting the fair rent fixed the petitioner was so much annoyed and that he was trying to find out a loophole to get the counter petitioner evicted from his house. The petitioner has not succeeded to show that there are arrears of rent by which he is entitled to evict the counter petitioner. The petition is therefore rejected.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.