TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 140 per month. The husband of the appellant died. Thereafter the appellant had been conducting the business from there. 4. On or about 15th April, 1976, the respondent purchased a three storeyed building. The petition schedule premises is a portion of the ground floor of the said three storeyed building. It is the case of the appellant that there were seven rooms on the first floor of the said building out of which four were in the possession of the respondent and three rented out as aforesaid. The premises on the second floor were used by the respondent-landlord as a lodge. On 9th April, 1977, the respondent filed an application under Section 17 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Act) for permission to convert the non-residential building to a residential building. On 30th November, 1977, the Accommodation Controller rejected the said application. 5. On 2nd June, 1978, the respondent filed the petition for eviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide need of the premises in question for his residence. Arrears of rent was also one of the grounds taken against the appellant. The tenant duly filed his objection. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgments and orders of the courts below. 11. For the present purpose, it is relevant to refer to Section 11(3) of the Act which provides as follows: 11(3). A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bona fide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him; Provided that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same city, town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so: Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business; Provided further that no landlord whose right to recover possession arises under an instrument o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any Court of law, except as provided in Section 20. 20. Revision:-(1) In cases where the appellate authority empowered under Section 18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. (2) The costs of and incidental to all proceedings before the High Court or District Court under Sub-section (1) shall be in its discretion. 13. It has further to be borne in mind that the Act in question was an Act to regulate the leasing of buildings and to control the rent of such buildings in the State of Kerala. 14. It was contended by Shri Poti, learned Counsel for the appellant, that no revision lay to the High Court. He submitted that Section 18(5) read with Section 20 of the Act has completely ousted the High Court's jurisdiction to interfere in this matter under Section 115 of the CPC. 15. Under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of a constable's pension, and also stipulated that the Court shall make an order which would be just and final, observed: Where it says, speaking of such an order, that it is to be final, I think it means there is to be an end of the business at quarter sessions.… 17. The said observation could most appropriately be applied to the expression used by the legislature in Sub-section (5) of Section 18 of the Act in question. It means what it says that subject to the decision of the appellate authority, the decision of the Rent Controller shall be final and could only be questioned in the manner provided in Section 20 and in no other manner. The intention of the legislature in enacting the said Act is clear and manifest from this section and the scheme of the Act, that is to say, to regulate the leasing of buildings and to control the rent of such buildings and to provide a tier of courts by themselves for eviction of the rented premises. This is writ large in the different provisions of the Act. This Court, referring to the aforesaid observations of Lord Loreburn, L.C. in the case of South Asia Industries Private Ltd. v. S.B. Sarup Singh and Ors.: [1965]2SCR756 ob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be called in question in any Court of law, except as provided in Section 20. What is to be noted here is that there is nothing in the Section which says that the decision of the revisional authority under Section 20 shall be final and shall not be called in question in any higher court. 18. The learned judge referred to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Maung Ba Thaw and Anr.-Insolvents v. Ma Pin. The learned judge also referred to a decision of this Court in South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v. S.B. Sarup Singh and Ors. (supra). The learned judge concluded that so long as there was no specific provision in the statute making the determination by the District Court final and excluding the supervisory power of the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC, it had to be held that the decision rendered by the District Court under Section 20(1) of the Act being a decision of a court subordinate to the High Court to which an appeal lay to the High Court was liable to be revised by the High Court under Section 115 of the CPC. In that view of the matter, the Full Bench rejected the view of the division bench of the Kerala High Court in Kurien v. Chacko [1960] KLT 1248 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein which superseded the bifurcation of the revisional jurisdiction between the High Court and the District Court. The High Court possessed revisional jurisdiction from an order of District Judge disposing of revision petition. This Court observed that Section 115 of the CPC conferred on the High Court of a State power to remove any jurisdictional error committed by a subordinate court in cases where the error could not be corrected by resort to its appellate jurisdiction. There after tracing the history of the amendment of the CPC by Amendment Act, 1976, this Court observed that the amendment superseded the scheme of bifurcation of revisional jurisdiction with effect from 1st February, 1977. Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act was amended from time to time in its application to the State of U.P. The two questions that fell for consideration before this Court were (i) whether the High Court possessed the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC in respect of an order of the District Court under Section 115 disposing of a revision petition and (ii) whether the High Court possessed revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. against an order of D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
