ANILATMAJAN Vs. MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition was returned, with a note that no revision against an order made under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for short the 'Act' is maintainable. The above note apparently is bated on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai ( 1987 (1) KLT 53 ). The Supreme Court in the said decision has observed thus:-

(2.) The order under challenge is one passed under S.14 of the Act. S.14 provides that the order passed under S.11 or S.13 or S.19 or S.33 and every order passed on appeal under S.18 or on revision under S.20, shall be executed by the Munsiff or if there are more than one Munsiff by the Principal Munsiff, having original jurisdiction over the area in which the building is situated as if it were a decree passed by him. To put it differently it is the Munsiff or if there are more than one Munsiff, the Principal Munsiff who will execute the order as if the said order is a decree passed by him. The legislature by a fiction has metamorphosed the order made mention of under S.14 to a decree within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code. The Munsiff thus is executing a decree and ordinarily the order that the Munsiff would pass in such proceedings is subject to further proceedings envisaged under S.47 C.P.C. However, an order passed under S.14 can be challenged only in the manner indicated in the proviso to the Section. The proviso reads:-

(3.) But the order, the revisional court would make is not final as in the case of an order that a revisional court would make under S.20, A reference ia this connection to S.18(5) of the Act is profitable. It reads:-