PANKAJAKSHAN Vs. UNITED ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner filed E. A. 216/85 in R. C. P. 6/82 before the Munsiff Court, Parur to take action against the respondents under S.11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The respondents filed the rent control petition under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act stating that they want to reconstruct the building. That petition was allowed by the Rent Controller on 28-8-1982. Thereafter, though the revision petitioner took up the matter in the superior courts he did not succeed. CRP. 2891/1984 filed before this court was dismissed on 18-12-1984. Contention of the revision petitioner is that on 20-12-1984 he surrendered the premises in his possession, that the building was reconstructed in such a manner as to deny him the frontage portion he had earlier and that as the respondents did not construct the building in the same location action should be taken against them. The learned Munsiff dismissed the petition holding that the revision petitioner failed to exercise his option in spite of repeated opportunities given to him by the respondents. It was also held that the landlord could construct the building only in accordance with the plan approved by the Municipality and therefore it cannot be said that the respondents could be punished as provided under the first proviso to S.11(4)(iv) of the Act.

(2.) Maintainability of the revision petition filed before this court is challenged by the respondents. S.14 of the Rent Control Act provides that every order made under S.11 (or S.12) or S.13 or S.19 or S.33 and every order passed on appeal under S.18 or on revision under S.20 shall, after the expiry of the time allowed therein be executed by the Munsiff or if there are more than one Munsiff, by the Principal Munsiff having original jurisdiction over the area in which the building is situated as if it were a decree passed by him. Proviso to the above Section stipulates that an order passed in execution under this section shall not be subject to an appeal but shall be subject to revision by the court to which appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the said Munsiff, S.14 makes it clear that every order about which mention has been made in the Section has to be executed by the Munsiff as if it were a decree passed by him. Rent Controller's order allowing eviction under any of the grounds allowed by the statute has to be executed before the Munsiff Court. As the first proviso stipulates that the order passed in execution shall not be subject to appeal but shall be subject to revision by the court to which appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the said Munsiff the revision petition filed before this court under S.115 CPC. is not maintainable.