KALLIANIKUTTY AMMA Vs. VELAYUDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Original Petition challenges the validity of an order Ext. P-1 passed by the Rent Controller, Wadakkancherry under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, holding that the first respondent's denial of the petitioner's title and right to evict him from the portion of the building described in the Rent Control Petition is bona fide and allowing the petitioner to file a suit for eviction of the respondents in the R.C.O.P. in a Civil Court. The petitioner is the landlord of the building concerned and she brought forward the Rent Control Petition alleging that the house had been orally entrusted to the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The first respondent denied the entrustment by the petitioner and contended that the lease was from the father of the petitioner, that there was a subsequent oral agreement to sell the leasehold property to him and in pursuance of the agreement he was put in possession of the property. The order of the Rent Control Court was obviously passed on the basis of Second proviso to S.11 of the Act; wherein it is stated -

(2.) S.38(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is as follows: -

(3.) The alternative remedy available to the petitioner is quite adequate; apart from the fact that the appellate authority will be a judicial officer, not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge, there is the right of a revision to the District Court. The revision is heard by the District Court as a court under the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore a further revision also lies in the High Court. In these circumstances, it will not be proper to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 or 227 of the Constitution in the matter. An order declining jurisdiction will certainly be a final order as far as the Tribunal is concerned.