NARAYANANKUTTY MENON Vs. KORUKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st Respondent obtained an order for eviction of the petitioner from the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode; The petitioner filed CMA. No. 308 of 1968; against the said order to the Appellate Authority, (the Sub Judge, Kozhikode) and sought an order for stay of eviction pending disposal of the appeal. The Appellate Authority by Ex. P-2 order, noticed the representation made on behalf of the 1st Respondent that large amounts were due by way of arrears of rent, and, in the circumstances directed the petitioner to furnish property security for the disputed amount of Rs. 13,500. CRP. No. 17 of 1968 preferred by the petitioner against the said order Was dismissed by the District Judge. The learned Judge was inclined to accept the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent to the maintainability of the revision petition. On the merits he was also satisfied that the order impugned was "within the judicial discretion" of the appellate authority, and that in passing the same, the said authority was not guilty of any "illegality" or perversity". Ext. P-4 is a copy of the District Judge's order and Ext. P-2 that of the appellate authority. These orders are impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) The view of the District Judge that the revision petition preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable is not correct. S.20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965; confers on the District Judge a power to call for and examine the records relating to "any order passed or proceedings taken" under the Act by the appellate authority, where the said authority is a Subordinate Judge. This provision is wide enough to sustain the revision preferred by the petitioner and the view of the District Judge to the contrary is wrong. He relied on the decision in The Central Bank of India Ltd v. Gokal Chand (MR 1967 SC 779). That was concerned with a right of appeal against an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Control Court, and not with the power of revision.

(3.) On the merits then, is the order of the appellate authority without jurisdiction, or otherwise liable to interference by this Court in these proceedings S.18 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act provides: