MATHEW Vs. RENT CONTROL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mathew Vadakkeparambil, party in person, N. Sukumaran for second respondent, Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for fourth respondent and Mr. S. Parameswaran, Amicus Curiae.

(2.) This is a petition for Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Art.132 & 133 of the Constitution of India and R.221 of the Kerala High Court Rules by the petitioner tenant, from the judgment dated 9.2.2000 of this Bench in O. P. 25855/99. According to the petitioner the impugned judgment raises many substantial questions of law of general importance which needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. Petitioner is a tenant under the second respondent. The petition was filed for fixation of fair rent by the tenant. In view of the ruling reported in Isaac Ninan v. State of Kerala ( 1995 (2) KLT 848 ), the petition was dismissed by the Additional Munsiff as not maintainable. According to the petitioner, the decision of the Division Bench, referred to above, at best rendered invalid S.5 of the Act only as applied to that case and that S.5 is not rendered invalid as applied to other litigants who apply for determination of fair rent and that the said judgment had no occasion to consider the question of fairness as to the deductibility from fair rent of repair charges incurred by the tenant in conjunction with the opportunity for the landlord for recovering cost of construction and profits under the aforesaid standard for determining fair rent.

(3.) The Division Bench in Isaac Ninan's case (supra) was considering the question of general public importance of S.5, 6 and 8 of the Act. The Bench, after considering various aspects of the matter and pros and cons of the relevant Section and also after referring to the rulings of the Supreme Court and the observations made therein, came to the conclusion that the impugned provisions do not stand the test of reasonableness and accordingly S.5, 6 and 8 of the Act relating to fair rent were declared as ultra vires the Constitution of India and are void. While considering the points raised by the petitioner/party in person this Bench held that once the law is declared as unconstitutional, no Court has jurisdiction to decide the case once again on the basis of the Sections which were struck down as ultra vires of the Constitution of India and are void.