GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who is the landlord of a building filed O. S. No. 137/84 before the Munsiff's Court, Ettumanoor, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant tenant from making any additions or alterations to the plaint schedule building. The plaintiff also filed an application in I. A. No. 738/84 praying for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from doing the above said acts till the disposal of the suit. The defendants filed two applications, I. A. Nos. 776 and 805 of 1984. In I. A. No. 805/84 the defendants sought for an order against the plaintiff to restrain him from demolishing the building. In I. A. No. 776/84 the defendants prayed for the issue of a commission for thatching and repairing the building. The Trial Court heard these three applications together and by a common order dated 21-8-1984 allowed all the three applications. As such now there is a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from making any additions or alterations to the plaint schedule building and there is an injunction against the plaintiff from demolishing the building. By the order in I. A. No. 776/84 the Trial Court directed the plaintiff to thatch the building and repair the same within one month at his own expenses and in case he fails to do so, there is a further direction that the defendants are allowed to take out a commission for thatching and repairing the building at the cost of the defendants and the cost will be adjusted against the rent of the building in question. The plaintiff challenges the order in I. A. No. 776/84 in this civil revision petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the plaintiff-revision petitioner, who is hereinafter referred to as the landlord, contended that the Munsiff's Court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under S.151 or any other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain such an application in view of the provisions in S.17(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to the landlord, the building in question is almost completely dilapidated and only by reconstructing the same it can be made fit for human habitation or for the conduct of any business. It was also contended that in any view of the case there was no notice to the landlord to effect , any repairs. The learned counsel for the defendants respondents, hereinafter referred to as the tenant, supported the order of the Munsiff's Court. It was submitted that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain such an application. There is no express or implied bar in S.17(2) of the Act ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court. The Munsiff's Court relied on the commissioner's report which will show that the building required urgent repairs and there was no illegality in the order of the lower court which accepted the commissioner's report.

(3.) Both the learned counsel argued elaborately on the question of jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain an application by the tenant to direct the landlord to repair the building. S.108(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, which is the general provision of law, is as follows: