PARAMESWARAN Vs. RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Civil Revision Petition under S. 115 of the code of Civil Procedure against the order made by the revisional court under the Kerala Rent Control Act. The respondent-landlord made an application for eviction of the petitioner on various grounds. Petitioner resisted the case contending that he is a kudikidappukaran of the suit premises and that therefore he is not liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Kerala rent Control Act. As required by S. 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act the question as to whether the petitioner is a kudikidappukaran, was referred to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal recorded the finding against the petitioner and held that he is not a kudikidappukaran. Accepting that finding the Rent Control Court made an order of eviction against the petitioner. That order was affirmed on appeal. On further revision that order was set aside and the case was remitted back for fresh disposal by the appellate court. The revisional order, however, affirmed the findings on the question of the petitioner not being a kudikidappukaran. It is only in regard to other matters that the matter came to be remitted. Thereafter the appellate court made an order against the petitioner which has been affirmed on revision by the revisional authority. It is thus that the petitioner is now before this Court in a second revision petition under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) SRI. C. S. Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, strongly contended that there is an impression in the minds of the land Tribunals that whenever an issue is referred to the Land Tribunal under sub-section (3) of S. 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act their obligation is only to record the finding and forward that finding alone to the court or authority which has referred the said question for its decision. His complaint is that the understanding of the Land Tribunal of its obligation under sub-section (4) of S. 125 is not correct. The said provision provides that the land Tribunal shall decide the issue and return the records together with its decision to the Civil Court . Sub-section (6) of S. 125 of the said Act provides that the decision on the question referred to it shall, for the purpose of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the civil court. A Full Bench of this Court reported in 1979 k. L. T. 766 between Kesava Bhat and Subraya Bhat has held that the finding of the Land Tribunal incorporated by the court of first instance is liable to be challenged in appeal and in the higher forums. It is therefore, clear that the finding of the Land Tribunal on the question referred to it under sub-section (3) of S. 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is liable to be reversed by the higher courts namely the appellate or the revisional court. It is in this context that we have to understand the provisions of sub-section (4) of S. 125 which requires the Land Tribunal to return the records together with the decisions to the civil court which has referred the questions under sub-section (3) of S. 125. The expression 'records' used in sub-section (4) of S. 125 must be understood as the 'records which lead the Land Tribunal, recording a finding on the issue referred to it'. In other words, all relevant materials which were placed before the Land Tribunal for its consideration on the basis of which it has recorded its findings form part of the records which must be remitted along with the findings to the civil court which has referred the question. This is absolutely necessary to enable the appellate court and the revisional court to examine the correctness of those findings as a Full Bench of this Court has held that those findings are not final and are capable of being reversed by the appellate and the revisional courts. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that sub-section (4) of S. 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act imposes an obligation on the Land Tribunal to remit to the court which has referred the question to it under S. 125 (3) of the said Act, all records including the evidence, oral and documentary, produced before it along with its findings.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that further time may be granted to vacate the premises. LEARNED counsel for the respondents submitted that reasonable time may be granted subject to the condition that the petitioner files an appropriate affidavit giving an undertaking to the court of first instance to vacate the premises unconditionally and to pay the rent regularly until the time expires. This is a reasonable request and must be acceded to. Hence while dismissing the revision petition I grant nine months time to the petitioner to vacate the premises if the petitioner files an affidavit in the court of first instance within three weeks from today, giving an undertaking to vacate the premises unconditionally within nine months from today and to pay the rent regularly till he vacates the premises. No costs. Dismissed.