P V THOMAS Vs. M V RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed by a tenant in a proceeding, R. C. P. No. 1/82 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Parur, instituted under the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, is directed against an order passed in I. A. No. 2130/82, which was a petition for issue of a commission to ascertain the value of certain matters mentioned therein. This order was challenged by the petitioner herein in R. C. A. No. 25/83 before the Appellate Authority. This appeal was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellate order was challenged in R. C. R. P. No. 20/83 before the District Court, Parur. The learned Addl. District Judge, who heard the revision found that the appeal is maintainable; but, on merits dismissed the petition upholding the order of the first court.

(2.) Strongly assailing this order, Shri M. K. Narayana Menon, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner urged three points before this Court.

(3.) The learned advocate very vehemently contended that what was claimed in the petition was issue of a commission to ascertain the improvements effected on land as well as on the building and therefore S.17(2) is not a bar for consideration of such an application as that section applies only to repairs and maintenance of buildings. It was also contended that the right to claim improvements is a substantial right conferred on the petitioner under S.4 of Act 29 of 1958 and that right is not taken away by the provisions of S.17(2) of the Act. It was argued that S.17(2) is only an enabling provision and that this section does not curtail or reduce the right of a tenant under Act 29 of 1958. The counsel also pointed out that the Rent Control Court has jurisdiction to issue a commission by virtue of the provisions in S.23(1)(g) of the Act. The counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in 1981 KLT 179 in support of the contention that the Rent Control Court has power to issue a commission for ascertaining the existence of improvements and their value. It was further argued that the court below did not consider the question whether Act 29 of 1958 applied to the present case or not. According to the counsel, the decision reported in 1972 KLT 188 has no application to the facts of the case and a decision of the erstwhile Cochin High Court in 39 Cochin 194(D. B.) is exactly on the "point, which decision has clearly laid down that in a case of this nature the tenant is entitled to claim value of improvements.