SAFEENA SALIM Vs. P.A. SUBAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE rent control revisions filed under Section 20 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Act 2 of 1965), hereinafter called 'the Act', are against a common judgment by which the Appellate Authority has dismissed appeals filed under Section 18 of that Act challenging interlocutory orders by which the Rent Control Court refused to adjudicate an issue sought to be raised by the tenants as if there is a bona fide denial of title of the landlord. They, therefore, attempted to press into service Section 11(1) of the Act. That did not find favour with the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority. Hence, these revisions.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the findings of the courts below are not sustainable and that the orders are vitiated by illegality, irregularity and impropriety, though they are concurrent. Per contra, the learned counsel for the landlord/respondent argued that the plea attempting to deny the title of the landlord itself was not bona fide.

(3.) BE that as it may, one thing is certain. Even if the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority has made any observation regarding the rival title of the parties in the order and judgment impugned in these revisions, the jurisdictional civil court would try any suit for specific performance and decide any such matter untrammelled by anything stated in those order and judgment. This is also the clear effect of the law.