KOLAPPAN ACHARI Vs. HANEEFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 197 of 1978 of the Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara, is the revision petitioner. The suit was for a declaration that he was not liable to be evicted in execution of the order passed by the Rent Control Court in B. R. C. O. P. No. 18 of 1974 as it was unenforceable against him in view of the order of the Land Tribunal, Athiyannur in O. A. No. 891 of 1972 declaring him as a kudikidappukaran. The suit arose under the following circumstances: The petitioner filed O. A. No. 891 of 1972 for purchase of kudikidappu right under S.80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. That application was dismissed by the Land Tribunal on 28-2-1973. The petitioner filed an appeal as A. A. No. 1022 of 1973 before the Appellate Authority. It was then that the rent control petition was filed by the landlord for eviction. The petitioner raised a plea that he was a kudikidappukaran and hence was not liable to be evicted. This question was referred under S.125(3) of the Act to the same Land Tribunal who had earlier decided O. A. No. 891 of 1972. The Land Tribunal entered a finding against the petitioner which finding was accepted by the Rent Control Court and eviction was ordered on 24-2-1976. The Appellate Authority constituted under the Act took up the appeal for hearing and as per its order dated 5-8-1976 set aside the order of the Land Tribunal in O.A. No. 891 of 1972 and remanded the case back to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal. The appeal filed against the order of the Rent Control Court as B.R.C.A. No. 78 of 1976 was dismissed on 28-8-1976. A revision was filed by the petitioner as B.R.C. Revision No. 157 of 1976. The revisional Court passed an order as follows on 12-1-1977:

(2.) Having been worsted thus, in the proceedings mentioned above, the present suit was filed by the petitioner with the prayers mentioned above. He filed I. A. No. 4424 of 1978 for an injunction to restrain the respondent from executing the rent control order and from evicting him. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. An appeal was filed to the District Court, which met with the same result. Hence this civil revision petition.

(3.) The petitioner's counsel submitted that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide or settle any question which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The findings of the Executing Court, according to him, should have been upheld by the appellate Court. Pointed reference was made to S.75(1) and S.127 of the Act, which read as follows: