GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD all the learned counsel; Mr. T. R. G. Warrier for the appellants, Mr. Sasikumar, Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, mr. Pushparaj for the 3rd respondent and Mr. N. P. Samuel, for respondent No. 4.

(2.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 3rd march, 1999 of the learned Single Judge in O. P. No. 5485 of 1999. The Original petition was filed by the appellants who are the co-owners of several shops in thrissur town. The shops have been let out to several parties on monthly rent. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the present appeal are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the Original Petition, who are the tenants in the shops owned by the appellants. The relief prayed for in the Original Petition is for setting aside the judgments and orders Ext. P1 dated 30. 11. 1998 passed by the Principal munsiff, Trichur in O. S. No. 2121 of 1997 and Ext. P2 dated 30. 1. 1999 passed by the 1st Additional Munsiff, Thrissur in O. S. No. 2120 of 1997. Ext. PI is the judgment delivered by the trial court in a suit filed by the appellants for enhancement of rent against respondent No. 3 Kavitha Foot Wear. Ext. P2 is the judgment delivered by the trial court in the suit filed by the appellants for increase in the rent against respondent No. 4 United Agencies. In both the suits an issue was framed as to whether the suit was maintainable in law. In ext. P1 the trial court has upheld the objection raised by the defendant-respondent No. 3 that the civil court did hot have jurisdiction to fix the fair rent or enhance the rent already agreed between the parties.

(3.) THE view expressed in Issac Ninan's case was reiterated by another Division Bench in Jan Enterprises v. Aegee Enterprises, 2000 (1) KLT 20, where this Court held that when a law was declared as unconstitutional, its normal impact was that the statute has to be read as if the defective sections were not there in the Act at all. Since this Court in issac Ninan's case had struck down Ss. 5, 6 and 8 of the Rent Act, it was clarified in the case of Jan Enterprises that the Sections struck down were not in the said Act ever since its commencement. THE Rent Control Court had therefore, no jurisdiction to fix the fair rent even prior to the date of the judgment in Issac Ninan's case which was decided on the 2nd November, 1995. In jan Enterprises' case the landlords had challenged the orders passed by the rent Control Court on 20th December, 1989 and by the Appellate Court on 18th august 1990. Since the relevant Sections were struck down as unconstitutional in Issac Ninan's case, the view expressed in Jan Enterprises' case is that the authorities under the Rent Act had no jurisdiction even prior to the date of the judgment of this Court in Issac Ninan's case. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Rent Control Court rendered on December 20,1989 and by the appellate Court on 18th August, 1990 were held to be invalid and set aside. THE decision in Jan Enterprises' case only deals with the effect of the earlier decision in Issac Ninan's case on orders which were passed at an earlier date under the provisions which were struck down later.