LEELAMMA Vs. SECOND ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the landlord of a building. The landlord obtained an order for eviction against respondent No. 3 under S. 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter called the Act. The operative portion of the order for eviction read as follows : -

(2.) The tenant filed an application before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam which was numbered as E.A. 590 of 1994. The said application purports to be one under Order 21 Rules 10, 11 and 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with S. 14 of the Act. The tenant claiming himself to be the decree holder complained that the landlord -judgment debtor had not put the tenant in possession of the reconstructed building despite the lapse of time granted therefor and hence the tenant is entitled to delivery of a suitable portion of the building in execution. The tenant also filed an application which was numbered as E.A. 351 of 1994 seeking an order of injunction restraining the landlord from inducting any stranger into the room which according to him corresponded to the room earlier occupied by him. The landlord appeared and filed a preliminary objection contending that the execution petition was not maintainable in law and that court had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for in the execution petition and in the interlocutory application and that the question of jurisdiction should be taken up and decided as a preliminary issue. The landlord also reserved her rights to raise all other available contentions in case the question of jurisdiction was decided against her. The Principal Munsiff who apparently was also by the Rent Controller by order dt. 9 -8 -1994 held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application and consequently overruled the preliminary objections raised by the landlord. Not content, the landlord filed a revision against the order of the Principal Munsiff and Rent Controller under the proviso to S. 14 of the Act before the District Court. The District Court by its order dt. 17 -11 -1994 held that the executing court had jurisdiction to order restoration of possession in case an order for eviction is passed under S. 11(4)(iv) of the Act. It also held that there was no substance in the contention of the appellant that there was no executable order in favour of the tenant. Consequently the District Court dismissed the revision. The correctness of the said decision is sought to be questioned in this proceeding.

(3.) S. 11(4)(iv) of the Act reads as follows : - - -