NATARAJA CHETTIAR Vs. SULEKHA AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the light of the recent pronouncement of this Court in 1987 (1) KLT 53 : 1987 (1) SCC 183 Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai holding S.18(5) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 read with S.20 of the said Act excludes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judgment of the High Court allowing the revision petition filed under S.115 CPC and setting aside the concurrent orders passed by the Rent Control Court the Appellate Authority and the District Court cannot be sustained. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the Decree for eviction passed by the High Court is set aside.

(2.) Mr. G. Viswanatha Iyer, Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has very fairly stated before us that his client is agreeable to pay enhanced rent at Rs.300/- per month for the suit premises with effect from 1st May 1987. This statement is recorded. We direct that the appellant shall be liable to pay enhanced rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month with effect from 1st of May, 1987. Subject to the above observation and direction the appeal is allowed and the decree passed by the High Court is set aside.

(3.) Before parting with this case we think it necessary to observe that while a revision petition under S.115 CPC may not lie to the High Court against the revisional order passed by the District Judge in view of the decision in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai aforecited it will be perfectly open to the party aggrieved by the decision of the District Judge to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution.