Case: E.V. Mathal Vs. The Subordinate Judge, Kottayam and Ors

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 It is pertinent to note here that the Kerala Act of 1959 was repealed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 and the new Act came into force on 1st April, 1965.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.

Court's reasoning:
We find ourselves unable to accept this contention.The proviso to Section 34 (1) lays down that a legal proceeding which could have been instituted, continued or enforced under the repealed Act of 1959 may be instituted under the corresponding provisions of the new Act. Mr. Daphtary tried to meet this by urging that Section 11 (4) of the Act of 1959 did not contain any correspondingfind ourselves unable to accept Mr. Daphtarys argument that the above quoted provision of Section 11 of the Act of 1959 was not "a corresponding provision" within the meaning of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act of 1965. To correspond means to be in harmony with or be similar, analogous to". It does not mean to "be identical with" and therefore the relevant provisions of Section 34 (1) of the Act of 1965 must be held to be a provision corresponding to Section 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 Shortdo not think that is the proper construction to be put on the words of sub-section (1) of Section 11 in view of Section 34 (1) of the samethe words of this section we cannot hold that a revision is limited to a mere question of jurisdiction.In our view the District Judge was empowered to consider whether on the evidence the finding of the Subordinate Judge was proper. In any event, the same was confirmed by the High Court in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and we do not feel called upon to examine the question as to whether the revision was properly heard and disposed of by the Districtour opinion, there was sufficient evidence to hold that the lawyer was in exclusive possession of the room and although the rent was paid on a daily basis it was not a case of the grant of a licence.In any event, the finding as to sub-letting does not call for interference in this case seeing that the District Court and the High Court both accepted the evidence as conclusive offind ourselves unable to accept Mr. Daphtarys argument that the above quoted provision of Section 11 of the Act of 1959 was not "a corresponding provision" within the meaning of the proviso to(1) of Section 34 of the Act of 1965. To correspond means to be in harmony with or be similar, analogous to". It does not mean to "be identical with" and therefore the relevant provisions of Section 34 (1) of the Act of 1965 must be held to be a provision corresponding to Section 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 Shortbuildings were let out as a lodging house and the evidence showed that one of the rooms was in the occupation of a lawyer who had been there for years and had put up his name board outside the room. Besides the name board of the lawyer, there were the name boards of other persons and the lawyer paid rent on a daily basis. The lawyer had installed a telephone in his room.r opinion, there was sufficient evidence to hold that the lawyer was in exclusive possession of the room and although the rent was paid on a daily basis it was not a case of the grant of a licence.In any event, the finding as todoes not call for interference in this case seeing that the District Court and the High Court both accepted the evidence as conclusive of