SUNDARAN Vs. MOHAMMED KOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a rent control proceeding initiated by a landlord for eviction of his tenant under S.11(2) and (3) of the Kerala buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 the tenant raised a contention, inter alia, that he is entitled to the protection envisaged in S.106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the KLR Act')- He then pressed that the question be referred to the Land Tribunal under S.125(3) of the KLR Act for decision. But Rent Control Court declined to do so on the premise that the said contention of the tenant is not bona fide. Thereupon, he went in appeal, but the Appellate Authority concurred with the Rent Control Court and dismissed the appeal. Now the tenant has come up with this revision.

(2.) It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the question whether the tenant is entitled to the right under S.106 of the KLR Act is also one which should be determined by the Land Tribunal and hence the said question would fall within the ambit of S.125(3) of the KLR Act (vide Ramadas v. Krishnan Nair - 1984 KLT 371 ). The correctness of the said decision has not been canvassed before us. The line of thinking adopted by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority is that unless the claim is bona fide the question would not really "arise" for consideration in rent control proceedings and as such there is no need to make a reference of the question to the Land Tribunal.

(3.) Under S.125(3) of the KLR Act if in any suit or other proceedings any question regarding the rights of the tenant, including a question as to whether a person is a tenant "arises" then the civil court does not have jurisdiction to determine that question. It is now well high settled that unless the question legally arises, there is no obligation for the civil court to make a reference of it. It was so held first by Bhaskaran, J. (as he then was) in George v. Chakkunni ( 1977 KLT 865 ). A larger Full Bench of this Court has affirmed the said legal position in Kesava Bhat v. Subraya Bhat ( 1979 KLT 766 ). Recently another Full Bench has followed the same principle in Muhammad Haji v. Kunhunni Nair ( 1993 (1) KLT 227 ).