VENKITASUBRAMONIA IYER Vs. BHARATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am afraid the District Court acted entirely without jurisdiction in setting aside the order of the Rent Control Court declining the prayer of the respondent tenant that the order for eviction made against him should be vacated under S.11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. In doing so the District Court purported to act under S.20 of the Act but it is clear from a reading of that section that revision lies thereunder only from the order of the appellate authority and not directly from the order of the Rent Court. Here the appellate authority was the Subordinate Judge, Quilon, but the respondent tenant went straight in revision to the District Court instead of going in appeal to the appellate authority. Under S.18(5) of the Act, the decision of the appellate authority, and, subject to the decision of the appellate authority, an order of the Rent Control Court, is final and can be called in question only under S.20; and under S.20 it is only the decision of the appellate authority and not that of the Rent Control Court that can bo called in question. Here the District Court had no jurisdiction to act under S.20; the order it made cannot therefore be regarded as one under that section; and the finality conferred by S.18(5) attaches to the order of Rent Control Court and not to the order of the District Court. No question of applying the decision in 1960 KLT 1248 so as to exclude the jurisdiction of this Court under S.115 of the CPC. can therefore arise. The District Court is a court subordinate to this Court; it has made an order entirely without jurisdiction which does not fall within any of the provisions of the statute in question; no appeal lies from that order, and hence this Court is competent to interfere under S.115 (a) CPC.

(2.) There appears to have been considerable confusion in this matter because the Rent Control Court is presided over by the Munsiff who under S.14 of the Act is the authority to execute an eviction order made under S.11. Under the proviso to S.14, from an order passed in execution, revision lies to Court to which appeals ordinarily He against the decisions of the Munsiff, in this ease, to the District Court, Quilon. The respondent tenant purported to make his application for revision to the District Court under this proviso and it would appear that the District Court took cognizance of the application as one made thereunder although in passing orders it purported to act under S.20. But the order against which the respondent complained was, as we have seen, an order made by the Rent Control Court and not an order made by the Munsiff in execution under S.14; and, in any view of the matter his application to the District Court was completely misconceived.

(3.) I allow this petition by the landlord with costs and set aside the order of the District Court, restoring thereby the order of the Rent Control Court.