SUBBA Vs. BHASKARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .R.P.No.335 of 1991 is filed against the order of the Appellate Authority(Rent Control ),Kasaragod in R.C.A.No.24 of 1989.The tenant is the revision Petitioner.The landlord filed an application for eviction under Section 11(2)and 11(3)of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control)Act.In the objections filed,the Petitioner raised the objection that he was a cultivating tenant.That issue was raised and it was referred to the Land Tribunal.The Land Tribunal held that the Petitioner is not a cultivating tenant.Thus,the tenant could not go ahead with his claim of permanent tenancy.Then he filed an amendment application claiming the right of kudikidappu.That application was dismissed by the trial Court and it was confirmed in appeal by tne appellate authority.It is against that the present revision is filed.

(2.) THE rent control petition was filed in 1983 and the amendment application was filed only on 1988,that too,after the tenant failed to get the reference answered in his favour.This Court has,in many cases,held that,a second reference is not possible and that in the first reference itself all the contentions of the person who wants the reference should be made.Both the trial Court and the appellate authority relied on the decision reported in Narayanan v.Kunchi Amma Parukutty Amma 1986 K.L.T.1340.Learned Counsel for the Respondent brought to our notice the decision reported in Devaki Amma v.Philipose 1992(2)K.L.T.281 and Abdulrahiman v.Abdulla Haji 1991(1)K.L.T.702.

(3.) SO far as C.R.P.No.62/98 is concerned,Petitioner is the Appellant in A.A.13/89.C.R.P.is filed against the concurrent finding by which it was held that Petitioner was not entitled to purchase of landlord's right and title under Section 72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.The proceedings arise under the suo motu proceedings.According to us,it is not necessary for us to decide this question,because in C.R.P.No.335/91 on a reference at the instance of the Petitioner,the Land Tribunal has returned a finding that he is not a cultivating tenant.That finding will be part of the finding of the rent control Court which the rent control Court is to give.If the Court gives an adverse finding against the Petitioner,then in appeal the Petitioner can challenge the finding of the Land Tribunal.With liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the order in case the rent control Court decides against him,C.R.P.No.62 of 1998 is disposed of.