RAMANKUTTY Vs. AYISSAKUNHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the mid summer vacation in 1987. District Judge, Tellicherry heard arguments in a Rent Control Revision petition and pronounced order. The main ground on which the said order is challenged in this Original Petition under Art.227 of the Constitution is that the order is null and void as the District Judge has no jurisdiction to hear cases, or to pass orders, other than as a vacation Judge.

(2.) A short resume of facts would be beneficial to appreciate the rival contentions. A landlord filed an application for eviction of the tenant before the Rent Control Court on two different grounds under S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. One of the grounds is that the tenant has sublet the building without the consent of the landlord. The Rent Control Court granted an order of eviction on that ground, but the Appellate Authority reversed the finding and dismissed the petition. The aggrieved landlord filed a revision petition under S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. When the case was posted for 8-4-1987 counsel for the tenant was not ready, but he submitted that the case can be posted during vacation. As the other side bad no objection to the aforesaid course, the revision was posted to a date during mid summer vacation. On 18-4-1987 arguments on both sides were heard and the District Judge pronounced the order on 25-4-1987 by allowing the revision and restoring the Rent Control Court's order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner (tenant) urged two points. The first is that the District Judge erred in exercising his jurisdiction by interfering with the finding of the Appellate Authority that there was no subletting. The second is that the District Judge has no jurisdiction to hear cases during vacation and to pass orders. There is no merit in the first point urged as the District Judge has only acted within the limits of his revisional powers. Therefore, no disturbance of the order need be made under Art.227 of the Constitution. On the second point counsel on both sides addressed detailed arguments. Therefore, I proceed to consider those arguments.