SIGMA AGENCIES P LTD Vs. P V THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shorn of frills and embroidery, the question that comes to sharp focus in this petition is, whether Ext. P4 order of remand made by this court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, revising an order made under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is Void'. Special leave to appeal against that order was declined by the Supreme Court. Invoking the jurisdiction of superintendence under Art.227 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks to quash Ext. P6 order made pursuant to the order of remand, Ext. P4.

(2.) Mother of first respondent - landlord, filed an application for eviction, R.C.P. 134/77 on the ground of bona fide need, the ground under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called "the Act". The application was allowed by Ext. Pl order dated 23-12-1977. On appeal, the appellate authority remitted the case to the Rent Controller. Both sides filed revision petition against that order. The revisional authority (District Judge) considered the petitions RCRP 142/78 and RCRP. 150/78, and set aside the order of remand and remitted the matter to the appellate authority, to consider the appeal afresh. Petitioner filed a second revision before this court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order of the revisional authority. That was dismissed. Thereafter the appellate authority allowed the appeal by Ext. P2. First respondent filed a revision and that was dismissed by Ext. P3. Against that, first respondent filed a revision petition before this court under S.115 of the Code. The revision petition was allowed by Ext. P4, remitting the case to the appellate authority. Petitioner moved the Supreme Court for special leave to appeal, and the application S.L.P. 8123/86 was dismissed on 21-8-1986. Thereafter, the appellate authority considered the appeal and allowed it by Ext. P5 order dated 23-7-1987. Ext. P5 order in appeal was set aside by the revisional authority by Ext. P6. Upon that, petitioner moved this petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Art.227 of the Constitution. This is an eleventh round litigation. Beginning with the Court of the Rent Controller, it passed through the appellate authority thrice, revisional authority thrice, through this court thrice, through the Supreme Court once and is here again under Art.227.

(3.) After the dismissal of SLP. 8123/86, by the decision in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai ( 1987 (1) KLT 53 ) dated 9-12-1986, the Supreme Court held that a second revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, will not lie in proceedings arising under the Act. According to petitioner, despite the dismissal of SLP 8123/86, by reason of a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, Ext. P4 order of the High Court is null and void. Petitioner would further submit that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition does not imply that Ext. P4 order of the High Court is correct.