LAWS(KER)-1985-4-21

ULAHANNAN KURIEN Vs. IPE THOMAS

Decided On April 12, 1985
ULAHANNAN KURIEN Appellant
V/S
IPE THOMAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point that arises for decision in this revision is whether a reference under S.125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 is incompetent where such a reference has already been made in a prior proceedings between the same parties. The revision petitioner is the respondent in B.R.C. (O.P.) No. 24/1979 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kottayam. The original petition was filed by the respondent herein for eviction under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the allegation that the .petitioner is the tenant of a building within the meaning of that Act. The revision petitioner contended inter alia that the petitioner herein is not the tenant of a building and that he is the lessee of land for a commercial purpose, who has put up buildings in the land prior to the stipulated date and that the petitioner is hence entitled to the benefit of S.106 of the K.L.R. Act. The claim of the revision petitioner as a tenant entitled to the benefit under S.106 of the Act is not admitted and the question whether he is such a tenant arises for determination in the proceedings before the Rent Control Court.

(2.) The revision petitioner filed I.A. No. 2208/79 under S.125(3) of the Act for referring his claim for benefit under S.106 of that Act to the Land Tribunal. That application was rejected by the Rent Control Court, and the appellate authority and the revisional court declined to interfere. This revision is therefore filed under S.115 C.P.C.

(3.) The respondent herein had earlier filed aa application for eviction as O.P. (R.C.) No. 36/74 wherein the identical contention was raised by the tenant. There was a reference to the Land Tribunal of that question under S.125(3) of the Act. The Land Tribunal entered the finding against the petitioner herein and returned it to the Rent Control Court. Thereafter the respondent did not appear in the Rent Control Court and the O.P.(R.C.) No.36/74 was dismissed for default of the landlord-petitioner therein.