ACHUTHAN Vs. SULOCHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only reason why the learned District Judge sitting in revision under the Proviso to S.14 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act denied the petitioner the protection of S.75 of Act 1 of 1964 and ordered his eviction (reversing the order of the Munsiff refusing eviction in execution of the order of the Rent Control Court) was that the wife of the petitioner as also his tarwad owned land and that therefore the petitioner came within the disqualification in the definition of "kudikidappukaran" in S.2(25) of Act 1 of 1964, namely, the disqualification of being a person in possession as owner of land (in excess the prescribed limits) on which he could erect a homestead. There was no case that the petitioner himself was in possession of any such land. Now quite apart from the fact that there is nothing to show that either the wife or the petitioner or his tarwad was in possession of any such land - the evidence is, in fact, to the contrary so far as the wife's property is concerned - the possession of the tarwad or the wife cannot attract the disqualification for the simple reason that their possession is not that of the petitioner nor their ownership his ownership even if he might be a joint owner of the tarwad property. That, by reason of the definition in S.2(43), a person includes a family or a joint family can hardly lead to the result reached by the learned District Judge that a person becomes possessed of land merely because his joint family or some other member of his family is possessed of land.

(2.) In directing the eviction of the petitioner the learned District Judge exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law.

(3.) I allow this petition with costs throughout, set aside the order of the District Judge, and restore that of the Munsiff.