ANANDAN Vs. SOUMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents are tenants of the building under the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner filed an eviction petition against the respondents under S.11(2) and 11 (3) of Kerala Act 2 of 1963 contending that rent has been kept in arrears and landlord needs the building bona fide for the separate residence of his daughter Jalaja. The application was resisted by the tenants and dismissed by the Rent Control Court. The dismissal was confirmed by the appellate authority. Landlord filed revision before the District Court under S.20 of the Act. During the pendency of the revision petition he filed an application to amend the eviction petition to incorporate amendment to the effect that his daughter Jalaja is dependent on him and that she has no other house of her own for separate residence. The District Court dismissed the application on the ground that the Revisional Court under S.20 of the Act has no jurisdiction to permit amendment of the pleadings and because allowing the amendment would involve adducing further evidence. This order is now challenged.

(2.) K. P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. who heard the case referred the same to a Division Bench on the ground that there is a conflict of authority as seen from the decisions in Lalitha R. Prabhu v. Krishna Alias Lakshmi Bai ( 1961 KLT 182 ) and Abdulla v. Rent Controller ( 1984 KLT 865 ) and the order in C.R.P. No. 44 of 1986.

(3.) S.23 delineates the power of the Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority.-Sub-section (1) states that subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, these authorities shall have powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when trying a suit in respect of the matters specified therein. The matter specified in clause (j) is "power to amend any defect or error in orders or proceedings". Sub-section (2) invests on the above authorities power to summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to be material. A plain reading of S.23 would indicate that what the legislature intended to lay down was the power and jurisdiction of specified authorities namely, Accommodation Controller, Rent Control court and the appellate authority. The legislature did not think it fit to include the revisional authority, whether it be the District Court or the High Court, within the purview of S.23. That is because specific conferment of powers is not necessary in the case of Revisional Courts which are civil courts. While the Rent Controller and the appellate authority function persona designata, revisional authority namely, District Court and High Court are not persona designata but courts in the existing hierarchy of courts. As such the revisional authority must necessarily have all the powers vested in the civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure. This has been made clear by a Full Bench of this court in Ouseph Vareed y. Mary ( 1968 KLT 583 (FB), where Eradi, J. (as he then was) observed for the Full Bench: