T T NARAYANAN Vs. KUTTIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under S. 115 CPC. is by the tenants of a building and arises out of proceedings for fixation of fair rent initiated at the instance of the landlord. The main question in dispute relates to the provision of law which should apply to the present case, namely, whether sub-s. (2) or (3) of S. 5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965.

(2.) THE building is a non-residential one and appears to have been continuously in the occupation of the tenants revision petitioners as early as from the year 1939. It is submitted by the revision petitioners that there is no definite finding by any of the courts below as to whether there was property tax in respect of the building at the time of its letting. However, the observation of the Rent Controller that there was no Panchayat in existence at the time of the letting of the building is not seriously challenged before me. If that be so, there is no likelihood of property tax having been fixed by the Panchayat or Municipality for this building at the time of letting.

(3.) NOW, before entering into the main question, one other incidental point that has been raised by Sri. P. C. Balakrishna Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, has to be dealt with. That point relates to the question as to whether the building has been or has not been assessed to property tax, which, according to the learned counsel, is a pertinent one in proceedings relating to fixation of fair rent. As has already been stated, this proceedings was initiated at the instance of the landlord. However, in the application, which has been read over to me, there are no averments as to whether the building bad been assessed to property tax. and if so, what the tax was. My attention has been drawn to the provisions contained in R. 7 and 12 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1959, which, I am told, are still in force. Sub-rule (1) of R. 7 reads as follows: "every application under the Act shall, in addition to the particulars necessary to support it, contain also the particulars prescribed in R. 12 so far as they may be applicable and every application for eviction under S. 11 shall also state the grounds on which the application is made. " The relevant portion of R. 12 is extracted below: "the particulars to be furnished under S. 27 shall be the following: (10) Rental value as entered in the property tax assessment of the Municipal Council, Panchayat or Local Board, as the case may be. S. 26 of the Act (Act 2 of 1965) provides that executive authorities of local bodies are to furnish certified extracts from property tax or house tax assessment books showing the rental value of the building or buildings and that such certified copy shall be received as evidence of the facts stated therein in proceedings under that Act. S. 27 provides that "27. Landlord and tenant to furnish particulars. Every landlord and every tenant of a building shall be bound to furnish to the accommodation Controller the Rent Control Court or any person authorised by it in that behalf such particulars in respect of the buildings as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. " The submission of the learned counsel is that it was incumbent on the part of the respondents herein to furnish details of the property tax to which the building in question was assessed, and that the respondents herein having failed in that behalf, when a petition was filed by the revision petitioners in the District Court during the pendency of the revisional proceedings to receive extract from the property register as additional evidence, the court declined to receive it on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in that behalf. It is contended that in doing so the District court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction which is really vested in it.