ABDUL KHADIR Vs. OUSEPH MATHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, which confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Court dismissing the petitioners' applications under S.11(2)(c) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners are the tenants. The landlord in these cases applied for eviction on the basis of arrears of rent and reconstruction. Eviction was ordered on both these grounds.

(2.) The tenants challenged the order of eviction before the Revisional Authority under S.20 of the Act. At that time, revision lay before the District Court. Against the order of the District Court, revisions were filed before the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the matter was pending before the High Court, the Supreme Court held in Aundal Ammal's Case ( 1987 (1) KLT 53 ) that a second revision will not lie before the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the Supreme Court held that a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India will lie to the High Court challenging the order of the Revisional Authorities under S.20 of the Act.

(3.) Thereafter, the petitioners moved the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India was heard on merits and it was dismissed. Thus, the eviction order was confirmed for reconstruction and for arrears of rent. After the High Court pronounced the order under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, the tenants deposited the entire arrears of rent within 30 days and filed petition under S.11(2) of the Act before the Rent Control Court to vacate the order of eviction under S.11(2)(c)of the Act. That application was dismissed by the Rent Control Court as well as by the Appellate Court. Both the courts primarily relied upon a decision of this Court in Krishna v. District Judge - 1991 (2) KLT 316 . In the above decision, Padmanabhan, J. held that the revisional jurisdiction is fundamentally appellate jurisdiction of a higher court with certain restrictions. A proceeding under Art.227 could be considered as a civil proceeding if the original proceeding on which it is based; is civil. It may be akin to S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the remedy is not statutory, but only constitutional in exercise of the right of the general power of superintendence. On that basis, the High Court held that the power under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Art.227 of the Constitution of India is different and so as a matter of right, the petitioners are not entitled to be given the right to exercise option under S.11(2)(c) of the Act. It is challenging the above orders that these revisions are filed.