KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR Vs. ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in the above appeals are tenants. The appellant in W.A.No. 653/ 96 is the petitioner in O.P. No. 3736/96. He is also the first respondent in O.P. No. 2686/ 96. The contesting respondents are the landlords. They are respondents 2 to 5 in O.P. No. 3736/96 and petitioners in O.P. No. 2686/96. The exhibits referred to in this judgment are the exhibits produced by the appellant in O.P. No. 3736 of 1996.

(2.) The tenant filed Ext P8 before the Accommodation Controller under S.17 of the Act 2/65 praying for a direction to effect necessary repairs in the tenanted premises and in case the landlord fail to carry out the repairs to allow him to effect the said repairs. The landlords filed Ext. P9 objection. The Accommodation Controller passed Ext. P10 order which is as follows:

(3.) Sri. Sanal Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that under S.17 of the Act 2/65, the Accommodation Controller has no jurisdiction to pass an order in the nature of Ext. P12 directing to undo the repair already done by the tenant. According to the learned counsel, once the Accommodation Controller passes an order directing the tenant to repair the building, he becomes functus officio and thereafter there is no jurisdiction either to modify or to annul the order. The only provision contained in Act 2/65 for execution of various orders is S.14. But S.14 does not cover an order passed by the Accommodation Controller under S.17 of Act 2/65. Therefore, Ext. P12 order was passed by the Accommodation Controller without any jurisdiction.