GIRAJA Vs. ANANTHA BHAKTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of jurisdiction is raised in this revision petition. Before the Rent controller, Kasaragod, the landlord applied for eviction of the present revision petitioner from the building under Section 11 (2), (3), (4) etc. of the Kerala buildings (Lease and Rent Con-tori) Act--Act 2 of 1965 (shortly stated the Act ). The revision petitioner--tenant filed his counter to the petition for eviction questioning the right of the landlord to file the petition and also questioning the genuineness of the rent deed which forms the basis of the petition. After some time it struck the revision petitioner that due to over-sight certain points were left out in her counter and so R. I. A. 188/70 was filed by her under Section 151, Civil p. C. requesting the Court for leave to file an additional counter. The point sought to be put forward in the additional counter was that the property in question is a residential property and not a commercial site and therefore the bona fide need to convert it into a garage was unsustainable. The learned Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to allow an amended counter to be filed. According to the learned Controller. Section 23 of the Act which vests in the Rent Control Court the powers under the Code of Civil procedure would not bring within its ambit the power to amend the pleadings. The tenant has, therefore, come up in revision.

(2.) OBJECTION is raised against the maintainability of this revision petition. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that a revision to this Court can lie under section 115, Civil P. C. , only if the Court from whose order the revision is filed, is a Court subordinate to this Court. The Rent Control Court is no Court subordinate to this Court. This position is well covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ouseph Vareed V. Mary. 1968 Ker LT 583 = (AIR 1969 Ker 103 FB), wherein the learned Judges have held :--

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued basing on a Division Bench decision in narayanan Nambiar v. Ambu Kunhi, 1964 Ker LT 591, that :-