KUNHI KELU Vs. ABDUL SAMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of importance on the procedural aspect has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It pertains to the revision under S.20 of the Rent Control Act. It has assumed some importance in the light of the notifications under the Rent Control Act and the jurisdiction of the various authorities,

(2.) The short question for consideration is whether a Single Judge of this Court can deal with and dispose of a revision filed under S.20 of the Act. That depends upon the interpretation to be placed on S.3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. The powers of the Single Judge are delineated in that Section. It is understandable that having regard to the circumstances as it prevailed in the year 1958, the enumeration of the revisions, which had to be dealt with by a Single Judge, was confined to revision under S.115oftheCPCand S.22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957. The Rent Control Act, even in its original form, had been brought into force only in the year 1959. The revisions under other enactments which had great sway and sweep over the fortunes of people and their lives, such as the Land Reforms Act, also came in only subsequently. They generated their own problems. One such arose in the context of the Land Reforms Act. The competence of a Single Judge to deal with the revision arising under S.103 of the Land Reforms Act, had to be considered, soon after the effective implementation of the enactment. A Division Bench of this Court had dealt with the problem in Ouseph Chacko v. Saraswathi Antherjanam, 1966 KLT 1060 . The provisions of the High Court Act were analysed. The provision under which a revision was filed under S.103 of the Land Reforms Act was adverted to. The significance of S.3(4) of the High Court Act, which dealt with only revisions under S.155 CPC and S.22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957 was considered by this Court. The ultimate conclusion was that only a Division Bench was competent to deal with and dispose of such revisions.

(3.) The Legislature accepted the correctness of the view, as is reflected by the further exercise made by it, when the Land Reforms Act was amended, and a Single Judge was empowered to deal with the revisions thereunder.