VASU Vs. PATHOOTY UMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition comes before us on a reference by T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, J. doubting the correctness of the decision in C.R.P. No.2559 of 1989 between Kalloli Kunhikannan and another v. Mannan Paithal and another reported in ( 1990 (1) KLT 651 : 1990 (1) KLJ 407 ).

(2.) The revision arises on a petition filed by the respondent, landlord of a shop room for eviction of the tenant under S.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1963 (for short, 'The Act') on the ground that the tenant (revision petitioner) has kept rent in arrears and that the landlord bona fide needs the building for the occupation of her dependent son, P.W.1 to enable him to start trade in auto spare parts. The petition was opposed by the tenant who admitted arrears of rent but denied the need alleged. He raised the plea under first proviso to S.11(3) that the land-

(3.) The landlord on 10-10-1986 filed an appeal before the Subordinate Judge, appellate authority constituted under S.18 of the Act against rejection of the demand for eviction under S.11(3) of the Act. The Subordinate Judge was then the appellate authority by virtue of a notification issued by the Government under S.18 of the Act, On 31-8-1989, the State Government issued another notification conferring on District Judges the powers of the appellate authorities for the purpose of the Act in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject. This notification was published in the official gazette on 26-9-1989 and took effect only with effect from that date. The High Court, on the administrative side, issued an official memorandum to the concerned Judges stating as follows: