KRISHNAN Vs. GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An anomalous situation has arisen in this Original Petition which is filed by the tenants/petitioners against whom an order of eviction has been passed. Tenants have filed this Original Petition in challenge of the order which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the revisional court. For the purpose of disposal of this Original Petition, it is unnecessary to mention the grounds on which the order of eviction has been granted.

(2.) Challenging the order passed by the Rent Control Court, an appeal was preferred by the tenants before the Appellate Authority at a time when appellate powers under S.18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act') could have been exercised by the Sub Court. By Ext. P2 judgment, the Sub Court, being the Appellate Authority, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Court. It was on 29-8-1989 that the Sub Court, as Appellate Authority, passed Ext. P2 judgment. But Government issued a notification dated 31-8-1989 which was published in the official gazette on 26-9-1989 conferring the powers of the Appellate Authorities for the purposes of the Act on District Judges, in supersession of all previous notifications on the subject. Landlord moved the District Court in revision under S.20 of the Act. On 8-4-1992, the District Court allowed the revision and remanded the case to the Appellate Authority, as per Exl.P3 order. Parties approached the Sub Court on the assumption that the Sub Judge was still the Appellate Authority. Sub Judge also thought like that and heard the appeal and dismissed the same confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court. Ext .P4 is the said judgment dated 21-1-91. Tenants challenged Ext. P4 in revision before the District Court. Learned District Judge dismissed the revision by Ext. P5 order. This Original Petition is in challenge of the original order passed by the Rent Control Court as well as Exts.P4, P4 and P5.

(3.) The first and main point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after remand, Sub Court should not have acted as the Appellate Authority under the Act, since the Sub Court was denuded of its jurisdiction through the notification published on 26-9-1989. But a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court reported in Chandramathi v. District Judge ( 1991 (1) KLT 84 ) has been cited wherein it is pointed out that when the revisional court remands the case to the Appellate Authority, the appellate powers could be exercised by the Sub Court notwithstanding the notification dated 26-9-89. If I have to go by the single Judge's decision, I have to hold that Ext. P4 judgment was passed by an authority having jurisdiction in the matter.