GIRI SHENOY Vs. RENT CONTROL COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th respondent filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners from a building on the allegation that the building bad been leased by him to the 1st petitioner and that the latter had unauthorisedly sublet it to the 2nd petitioner. The petition was filed under S.11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act for short). The landlord's case was accepted by the Rent Control Court and eviction ordered. The Appellate Authority, however reversed the order of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the petition for eviction. The 4th respondent filed a revision petition before the Revisional Court functioning under S.20 of the Act. The Revisional Court concurred with the Rent Control Court and restored the order of eviction in reversal of the order of the Appellate Authority. This order is Ext. P3. Revision Petition CRP. No. 1746/1984-E was filed in this court by the petitioners under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Pareed Pillay, J. allowed the Revision Petition by bis order Ext. P4 dated 24th June 1986. The petition for eviction was dismissed.

(2.) The landlord 4th respondent filed a petition for Special Leave in the Supreme Court against this order Ext. P4. By that time the decision in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai, 1987 (1) KLT 53 : AIR 1987 SC 203 had been rendered by the Supreme Court holding that revision under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable against the order of the revisional court functioning under S.20 of the Act. The Supreme Court therefore issued notice on the petition for Special Leave as follows:

(3.) The petitioners-tenants have thereafter filed this Original Petition under Art.227 of the Constitution challenging the order Ext. P3 of the revisional court. When this Original Petition came on for hearing, counsel for the 4th respondent raised a preliminary objection that this original petition was not maintainable. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the 4th respondent pointing out that the Original Petition is not maintainable. Though a contention has been raised in the counter affidavit that the order Ext. P5 of the Supreme Court operates as res judicata, Sri. T. P. Kelu Nambiar, counsel for the 4th respondent, submitted at the bearing that he was not basing his contention of non maintainability on any plea of res judicata, but otherwise. In view of this submission, no arguments were addressed by either side on the question of res judicata.