BEERA KOYA Vs. ALI KOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants, defeated in all the courts below, have come up in revision. Against them the landlord filed R. C. O. P No. 304/66 under Section 11 (2), (3) and (4) (i)of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (shortly stated the Act) for eviction. Eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller on the ground of sub-letting; the other grounds were all found in favour of the tenants. This order of the Rent controller stands confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as the District Judge in revision. The learned counsel has pressed before this Court a new ground which was never taken by him in any of the courts below. The ground is that the Addl. Munsiff who dealt with the matter was not competent to deal with the case, as under the relevant notification creating the Court of the Bent Controller, Addl. Munsiffs are excluded in stations where there are more Munsiffs than one. According to the learned counsel, the Principal Munsiff at the station alone can assume jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in such a situation. This lack of jurisdiction, according to the learned counsel, has vitiated the whole proceeding. The other question, viz. , the question regarding sub-letting, having concurrently been found by all the courts against the revision petitioner, I do not think can be considered again by this Court in revision; as a matter of fact the question of jurisdiction alone was seriously pressed before me.

(2.) STATED briefly, the argument of the learned counsel is that "although the person appointed to function as the Rent Control Court is a Munsiff. his appointment to such post under the Act is as persona designate and he will be functioning only as such and not as a Count while exercising jurisdiction as Rent Control Court". The same is the position with the Appellate Authority also; but the position is different when we come to Section 20 of the Act. because there the remedy by way of revision is to be sought from the District Court or the High Court. In other words, in exercising the revisional power under the section, the Revisional Authority functions as a Court and not as a persona designata, while both the Rent controller and the Appellate Authority functions as persona designata, For this position the learned counsel relied on the Full Bench decisions of this Court in balarama Iyer v. Krishnan, 1908 Ker LT 8 = (AIR 1968 Ker 240) (FB) and Ouseph vareed v. Mary, 1968 Ker LT 583 = (AIR 1969 Ker 103) (FB ). Against this position the other side would argue that a persona designata is a person who is pointed out or described as an individual, as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class, or as filling a particular character. Personae designatae are persons selected to act in their private capacity and not in their capacity as Judges. Instead of merely describing the designation of the post held by the officer, the argument is that the person who is to fill the post should be mentioned by name. For this position reliance is placed in Central Talkies, Kanpur v. Dwarka Prasad. AIR 1961 sc 606, which was followed in Surindra Mohan v. D. C. Abrol, AIR 1971 J and K 76 (FB) and other decisions. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision observed:

(3.) THUS the decisions are somewhat at variance with the two Full Bench decisions of our Court referred to above. But, for the purpose of the present case, the question whether the authority who decided the case was a persona designate or not is not the guiding factor. The notification constituting Rent Control Courts in the State is important in this connection. Notification No. 3512/59/pw (CC. 2)dated 1st July, 1959 is the relevant notification and it is prefaced thus:--