JANAKI AMMA Vs. S V VIDYA SAMAJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Petition is under Article 227 of the constitution challenging a certain order passed during the pendency of a Rent control Court proceeding.

(2.) FIRST respondent in this Original Petition - Sree vidyadhiraja Vidya Samajam filed an application before Rent Control Court for eviction of its tenant on some of the grounds envisaged in S. 11 of the Kerala buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the act ). Petitioners in this Original Petition are counter petitioners 2 and 3 before the Rent Control Court . (For the sake of convenience, first respondent herein will be referred to as landlord and second respondent as tenant ). According to the landlord, the present petitioners are also residing in the tenanted building. That is the reason why they too were made parties in the rent control proceedings. Petitioners raised various contentions before the Rent Control Court , among which the two relevant contentions are these: Landlord has no title to the building. Originally, the building belonged to one T. P. Velayudhan Pillai and from him second petitioner got it. Alternatively, it is contended that petitioners have kudikidappu right in the building. Landlord filed an application before the Rent Control Court urging the court to refer the question of kudikidappu right claimed by the petitioners to the Land Tribunal for its Determination. Thereupon, the Rent Control Court referred the said question to the Land Tribunal under S. 125 (3) of the Kerala land Reforms Act (for short 'klr act ). However, the landlord was directed to pay Rs. 2501- to the counsel for petitioners on account of the long delay in moving for making the reference. Both sides challenged the order in appeal before the appellate Authority, but both appeals were dismissed. Then both sides went to the District Court, in revision, with two separate revision petitions. Learned District Judge by Ext. P15 order dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners and allowed the revision filed by the landlord setting aside the direction to landlord to pay Rs. 250/ -. Ext. P15 is hence challenged by the petitioners in this Original Petition.

(3.) EVEN otherwise, when a tenant adopts as twin strategy, one alternative to the other, involving determination of the jurisdiction of the court, the tenant cannot dictate to the Rent Control Court to take up one contention before the other. In this case petitioners resorted to alternative contentions pertaining to the very jurisdiction oflhe Rent Control Court. If they are tenants their resistance would involve the question of jurisdiction on both the alternative questions raised. If they have kudikidappu right, the Rent control Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction. Similarly, if the denial of title of the landlord is found to be bonafide, then also the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to proceed further. Where the tenant claims kudikidappu right, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction even to proceed further as the question has to be referred to the Land Tribunal as envisaged in S. 125 (3) of the KLR Act and the Rent Control Court has to stay the proceedings before the reference is made. On the other hand, in the latter eventuality the Rent Control Court has power to determine its own jurisdiction by deciding whether denial of title is bonafide. It is in exercise of the said power that "the court, whose jurisdiction stands ousted on a finding that a certain plea or assertion made by the party is bona fide, must be in a position to hold that the plea is based on aver} 'fair and reasonable supposition". In holding so, the court must have the satisfaction that there are strong or at least substantial grounds or sufficient materials in support of such denial of title. (Vide Joseph v. Thomas -1987 (2) KLT 1029 ). But tenant cannot compel the Rent Control Court that the plea relating to denial of title must be decided before making the reference under S. 125 (3) of the KLR Act. It is for the court to adopt either of the two courses first. It is quite unnecessary to lay down any principle or to fix any specific rule regarding the order of priority in adopting the said two courses.