PAUL JOHN Vs. ITTOOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revisions involve the same question and are being, therefore, disposed of by a common judgment. The matter arises under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners before me are in possession of the ground floor and the first floor of one building situated within the Kunnamkulam Municipality. Eviction was sought, among other grounds, on the ground of bona fide requirements for reconstruction of the building. The Rent Control Court, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court ordered eviction. These revisions are filed in challenge of the orders passed by the revisional court.

(2.) As per a notification dated 1-7-1959 issued under S.3 of the Act, the Wadakkancherry Munsiff was constituted the Rent Control Court to decide cases under the Rent Control Act in respect of buildings within the Kunnamkulam Municipality. In supersession of the said notification another notification was issued by the Government on 30-5-1973 by which the Chowghat Munsiff was constituted the Rent Control Court in respect of buildings within the Kunnamkulam Municipality. The Rent Control petitions in these cases were filed before the Wadakkancherry Munsiff's Court on 15-7-1972. The only point raised before me in these revisions is that the Rent Control Court who passed the orders of eviction in the two petitions on 28-2-1976 after the second notification dated 30-5-1973 came into force, had no jurisdiction to pass those orders and therefore on that ground the orders of eviction have to be set aside.

(3.) This objection was not taken before the Rent Control Court. It was only before the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court that this objection was raised. The counsel for the respondent has a case that the petitioners submitted to the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court and therefore waived their right to question the jurisdiction to the Rent Control Court in passing the orders of eviction. I shall come to that question presently. The important question that falls for consideration is whether the notification dated 30-5-1973, on its terms, renders the Wadakkanchery Munsiff, without jurisdiction to try the cases pending before it. The notification only constitutes the Chowghat Munsiff as Rent Control Court for disputes relating to buildings within the Kunnamkulm Municipality. There is nothing in the notification as to what should happen to pending cases. In the absence of any guidance in the notification as to what should happen to pending cases, the only possible inference is that the said court should continue to proceed with these pending matters. The contention whether the notification is prospective or retrospective or weather the notification creates procedural right or substantive right, according to me, are not strictly germane while considering the notification. Even so, I shall consider this question of law since it was agitated at the bar.