VIJAYAPPA KURUP Vs. PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the landlord impugns Ext.P5 order passed by the Rent Control Court in execution proceedings and Ext.P7 order passed by the District Court in confirmation of Ext.P5. Eviction order was passed by the Rent Control Court in favour of the petitioner on the ground of reconstruction and after a long drawn out battle which was fought up to the Supreme Court of India, the petitioner took possession of the building. Once possession was obtained, the building was demolished. The tenant filed an execution petition complaining that the landlord has wilfully neglected in complying with the directions in the eviction order which were to the effect that reconstruction should be carried out within six months and the tenant must be provided with an area more or less equal to the area previously occupied by him subject to the tenant's liability to pay fair rent. The above E.P. was resisted by the landlord on various grounds and ultimately the issue was settled by this Court by Ext.P3 order. Under Ext.P3 order, this Court found that in the event of the landlord not completing the reconstruction within six months of Ext.P3, the petitioner/landlord will become liable to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- to the respondent tenant and at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month to another tenant against whom also similar order of eviction had been passed in favour of the petitioner. Fresh E.P. No. 209/2003 was filed by the respondent complaining that reconstruction is not completed and that the compensation amount directed to be paid under Ext.P3 is not paid. This E.P. was resisted by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that there is no willful negligence on his part in carrying out the reconstruction, but he is unable to carry out the reconstruction because of prohibitory orders issued by the local authority on the reason that the proposed construction is in violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The execution court repelled the contentions and passed Ext.P5 order directing proclamation and sale of properties belonging to the landlord. Against Ext.P5, a revision petition under Section 14 was preferred by the petitioner to the District Court, Alappuzha. That revision has been dismissed by Ext.P7 order by the learned District Judge and the present writ petition under Article 227 is filed seeking quashment of Ext.P7.

(2.) Sri.B. Krishnamani, learned Counsel for the petitioner has addressed us very strenuously and extensively. Sri.Krishnamani submitted that Ext.P7 order is a nullity since the learned District Judge lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass that order. My attention was drawn by Sri. Krishnamani to Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965. According to him, against the decisions of the Munsiff Court, Cherthala which passed Ext.P5, appeals ordinarily lie to the Sub Court, Cherthala and in terms of the proviso to Section 14, the Sub Court, Cherthala alone has the jurisdiction to decide revision petitions which are filed against orders like Ext.P5. He pointed out that a similar order had been passed by the same Munsiff against the tenant who was respondent in R.C.P. No. 34/1990 and against that order, the petitioner had filed a revision petition raising grounds identical to those raised in the revision petition leading to Ext.P7. That revision petition - R.C.R.P. No. 1/2008 was considered by another District Judge and that RCRP was not entertained and was returned to the petitioner for presentation before the proper court. Pursuant to that order, that RCRP was presented to the Sub Court, Cherthala and that RCRP has been renumbered by the Sub Court, Cherthala and is being considered by that court. According to the learned Counsel, any order passed by a court which did not have inherent jurisdiction to pass the same is a nullity and the contention that an order is a nullity due to lack of inherent jurisdiction for the court which passed the same, can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Sri.B.Krishnamani would fortify his arguments by relying on the judgment of this Court in Thankamma v. State of Kerala,1982 KerLT 496 and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash, 1977 3 SCR 60. Coming to the merits, Sri. Krishnamani submitted that at any rate the petitioner landlord is not to blame for the delay which has been caused in the matter of carrying out the reconstruction. There has been no wilful negligence on the part of the petitioner in carrying out the reconstruction. The petitioner was prevented from carrying out the reconstruction by the local authority which issued Ext.P2 prohibitory order restraining reconstruction alleging that the on going construction violates Section 220(b) ( 3 meter distance Rule) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. According to Sri.Krishnamani, any construction in violation of Ext.P2 will be illegal and the petitioner may not be compelled to carry out an illegal construction. Sri.Krishnamani also submitted that the issue regarding the legality of Ext.P2 as well as the construction undertaken by the petitioner is being pursued by the petitioner before other authorities.

(3.) We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 which is relevant for deciding the issue is extracted below: