SREENIVASAN T. K. Vs. RUGMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord in revision challenged the concurrent findings rendered by both the Rent Control Court and the Rent Control Appellate Authority under S.11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The Rent Control Petition was filed by the landlord alleging ground under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act. After the initiation of Rent Control Petition, roughly after six months, I.A. No. 977/2011 was also filed by the landlord with a prayer to fix fair rent of the petition schedule building. That application was allowed by the Rent Control Court fixing the rent at Rs.7,000.00 per month. However, the Rent Control Court has rejected the ground under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act by a common order, which was taken up in appeal by the landlord before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. A Cross Objection was filed by the tenants against the order in I.A. No. 977/2011. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeal and the cross objection, by its judgment dated 07/07/2015. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the landlord came up with this revision.

(3.) During the course of argument, a flagrant violation of jurisdiction vested with the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority came to our notice regarding exercise of jurisdiction under S.5 of the Act in an interlocutory application. It is not at all permissible either for the Rent Control Court or for the Rent Control Appellate Authority to take up the question of fixation of fair rent and to adjudicate the same in an interlocutory application. The matters which can be taken up in an interlocutory application should be within the four corners of the suit or proceeding and it should be capable of merging with the final judgment / order subject to certain exceptions. It is seemed to be so strange that an interlocutory application was filed by the landlord for the purpose of fixation of fair rent in a pending Rent Control Petition. It was taken into file by the Rent Control Court, proceeded with the application, permitted the parties to adduce evidence on that application and rendered a common order allowing the Interlocutory Application and dismissing the Rent Control Petition. The right under S.5 of the Act is separate and distinct and it cannot be raised by way of an Interlocutory Application. All decisions taken in an Interlocutory Application would stand as merged in the final judgment / order, in a proceeding. There may be some exceptions to this general rule. But, the order that may be passed in an interlocutory application, should be within the four corners of the suit / proceeding. An order passed under S.5 of the Act will not merge in an order that may be passed in a Rent Control Petition either under S.11(4)(ii) of the Act or any of the grounds under S.11 of the Act. Hence, the ground, if any, under S.5 of the Act available to either the landlord or the tenant, cannot be raised by way of an Interlocutory Application in a Rent Control Petition filed for evicting the tenants on any of the grounds under S.11 of the Act, except under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. It is permissible for the Rent Control Court to fix fair rent under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act at the time of re - allotment after reconstruction. The power to fix a fair rent under S.30 of the Act is standing on a different footing as it primarily vests in a prosecution Court under S.30(1) of the Act and it can be exercised when it was disclosed that a landlord was receiving a rent in excess of the rent that may be fixed under S.5, and the Court before which the complaint was filed shall, after the close of the proceedings before it, forward to the Rent Control Court the relevant extract of the proceedings for the purpose of fixing the fair rent. In that case, the Rent Control Court is bound by sub-section (2) of S.30 of the Act to take the extract into file and to issue notice to both the parties so as to give them an opportunity of being heard before fixing fair rent. The receipt of extract of proceedings forwarded by the prosecution Court would amounts to a separate proceeding analogous to S.5 of the Act and rent fixed is deemed to be a fair rent as determined under S.5 of the Act. There also there is no scope for determination of fair rent in an interlocutory application. The proceedings which can be initiated under S.30(2) of the Act is also separate and independent, analogous to S.5 of the Act. Hence, the decision taken by both the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority in I.A. No. 977/2011 is irregular and improper. It was submitted that no revision was filed by the tenants challenging the above said decision. Since there is a flagrant violation of the jurisdiction vested with the Rent Control Court as well as the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the same can be interfered even without a revision and we do so.