HANEEFA Vs. SUBHALEKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition arises in proceedings under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (Act 2 of 1965) hereinafter called the Act, for evicting the revision petitioner - tenant from the petition schedule building on the ground that the landlord needs the building bona fide for her own occupation. The. Rent Control Court dismissed the landlord's petition for eviction. Thereupon, the landlord filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Trivandrum as B.R.C.A. No. 119 of 1976. The appellate court, going into the merits of the controversy in detail, did not agree with the order of the Rent Control Court. The appeal was allowed and the landlord's prayer for eviction was granted.

(2.) This led to the revision petitioner filing a revision petition before the District Court under the Act as R.C.R.P. No. 82 of 1978. The revision was posted to 12 10 1978 for return of notice and for hearing. On that day, neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present. The respondent was also absent. The District Court dismissed the petition for default. The revision petitioner therefore filed an application before that Court for setting aside the ex parte order and for restoring the revision to file explaining the reason for the absence of himself and the counsel at the time of hearing. This application was rejected by the revisional court stating that it has no power for restoring the application dismissed for default. The Court said:

(3.) I have no hesitation in holding that this order is clearly wrong. Under S.20 of the Act, in cases where the appellate authority empowered under S.18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit, This Court has held in Vareed v. Mary ( 1968 KLT 583 ) that the decision rendered by the District Court is liable to be revised by the High Court under S.115 CPC. The District Judge is acting not as a persona designata. The matter comes to the District Court in the hierarchy of the civil courts. If that be so, then all the powers of the District Court as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, could be exercised by that court in hearing the revision. This will be in accordance with the well settled principle of law succinctly stated by Viscount Haldane L. C. in National Telephone Co. Ltd. v. Post Master General, 1913 AC 546 in these terms: