R ACHUTHA SHENOI Vs. LAND TRIBUNAL ALWAYE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the landlord of a building in Mattancherry, a portion of which is in the possession of the 3rd respondent who is alleged to be a tenant. For default of payment of rent, RCP No. 123 of 1971 was instituted by the petitioner in the Rent Control Court. The petitioner obtained an order for eviction on 18-12-1974 This order was challenged by the 3rd respondent in RCA No. 13/1975. The appeal was dismissed by Ext. P1 dated 26-7-1976. The revision filed by the 3rd respondent on 15-1-1977 as R.C.R.P. No. 17/77 was also rejected by order dated 6-2-1978. Thus the original order of the Rent Control Court allowing the application for eviction of the 3rd respondent for reason of arrears of rent was confirmed. I am told that CRP. No. 1624/79B filed in the High Court challenging the order of the revisional court was dismissed in limine. Subsequent to the decision of the revisional court, the third respondent, I am told, paid up the entire arrears. Accordingly the order of eviction stands vacated.

(2.) The question which arises in the present petition is as regards the competence of the Land Tribunal to proceed with an application for purchase. The 3rd respondent bad filed OA No. 1175/71 for purchase of kudikidappu. She contended that she was residing in the petitioner's building as a kudikidappukari. This application was dismissed for default by the Land Tribunal. However, the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), to which she went in appeal, by its order dated 24-4-1974 remitted the matter to the Land Tribunal to reconsider the question afresh after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard The matter was therefore taken back to the file of the Land Tribunal and renumbered as OA No. 76/77. The petitioner produced before the Land Tribunal the order of the Rent Control Court rejecting the 3rd respondent's contention that she was a Kudikidappukari and ordering her eviction as a tenant in default of payment of rent. The petitioner therefore contended that the Rent Control Court, having jurisdiction in the matter, had already pronounced upon the status of the 3rd respondent as a tenant, thereby rejecting her contention that she was a kudikidappukari. The petitioner pointed out that the principle of res judicata barred any consideration of the very same question by the Land Tribunal. Notwithstanding the objections, the Land Tribunal on 13-2-1978 posted the case for measurement of the area in question.

(3.) Petitioner's counsel Shri R. D. Shenoi submits that on the date of the application for eviction before the Rent Control Court, and subsequently on the date of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent raising the plea that she was a kudikidappukari, the Rent Control Court was competent to adjudicate the point in dispute. The jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court was taken away only by the amendment of S 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, by Act 17 of 1972 which came into effect on 2-11-1972. By this amendment sub-s.(8) was added to S.125 reading: