CHANDRAMATHI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN Original Petition under Art. 227 of The Constitution.

(2.) THE building in dispute belongs to the petitioner. This had been let out to the fourth respondent on" a rental of Rs. 35/ -. THE fourth respondent, according to the petitioner, sub-leased the building to the fifth respondent and therefore the petitioner moved the petition under S. 11 of THE Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act before the Rent Control Court for an order directing the fourth respondent to put the petitioner in possession of the building. Respondents 4 and 5, in their joint counter statement have stated that the sub-lease pleaded is not true. THE building, though taken on lease by the fourth respondent under a koolikychit, was taken to house the business carried on by respondents 4 and 5 jointly or in any event in partnership. THE Rent Control Court after considering the various aspects of the case has found that the subletting stands established and based on the said finding ordered eviction (vide Fjct. P1 order ). THE appeal taken there from by respondents 4 and 5 was allowed by the appellate authority (vide Ext. P2 ). THE revision taken there from by the petitioner was rejected by the District Court, by Ext. P3 which is under challenge in this O. P.

(3.) AFTER setting aside the order, ordinarily the matter should go back to the District Court for a denovo consideration. Whether a remand to the District Court of the matter after the Government Notification dt. 31-8-1989 published on 26-9-1989 conferring the appellate jurisdiction under s. 18 of The Rent Control Acton the District Judges having jurisdiction over the areas within which the provisions of the said Act have been extended is possible, is the question before us. Construing the scope of this Notification u. L. Bhat, J. speaking for the Division Bench in Vasu v. Pathooty Umma (1990 (1) KLT 670) has observed thus: "the Government Notification dated 31-8-1989 published on 26-9-1989 has brought about a significant change in the appellate forum and this has an impact on the revisional forum The Subordinate Judges have become denuded of the power of appellate authorities and the District Judges have become clothed with such power. This has an impact on the revisional forum in certain cases by virtue of the provisions of S. 20. S. 20, it may be recalled, make the District Court the revisional forum in cases where the appellate authority is the Subordinate Judge and the High Court in cases where the appellate authority is the District Judge ". (emphasis supplied) The Division Bench at the same time has upheld the ruling of Krishnamoorthy, J. in Joseph v. Malathyamma, (1989 (2) KLT 953) as also mathew v. Gilbert, 1990 (1) KLT 139 where the learned judge has held that in regard to all appellate orders passed on or before 26-9-1989, revision lay before District Court. That means in a case where the Subordinate Judge as appellate authority has disposed of a case prior to 26-9-1989 the revision lay before the District Court. If that be the position, the revision from out of which this proceeding arises can be remanded to the District Court for a denovo disposal because the order which was under challenge before the revisional court was admittedly one passed by the Subordinate Judge as appellate authority, prior to 26-9-1989.