SIVARAMA MENON Vs. RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the revision petitioner. Against him the landlord filed R. C. P. 109/68 for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, subletting and bona fide requirement for own occupation. The tenant (revision petitioner) denying these grounds filed M.P. 2686/69 claiming fixity of tenure and also that unless the value of improvements effected by him in the building amounting in all to Rs. 40,000/- is paid the landlord is not entitled to evict him and praying that this question may primarily be decided. In other words, his case is that the matter is governed by proviso (2) to S.11(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (shortly stated the Act) and the proper forum for deciding the question whether he could be evicted is the civil court and so according to the tenant the landlord should be directed by the Rent Control Court to move the civil court for appropriate orders. This petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller; but allowed in appeal by the learned appellate authority, which decision has been reversed by the District Judge in revision.

(2.) I think the decision of the learned District Judge is correct and does not call for interference in this further revision. Proviso (2) reads:--