SURENDRAN Vs. MUNSIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a tenant, against whom an order of eviction has been passed by a Rent Control Court on the ground under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short, the Act). The petitioner challenged the order in appeal before the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the appeal, landlord, who was the sole respondent in appeal, died on 20-11-1987. His counsel filed a memo in court on 7-12-1987 intimating the death. The petitioner (appellant) filed an application on 15-12-1987 to implead the legal representatives of the deceased landlord. The application was dismissed by the Appellate Authority as barred by the time prescribed in R.10 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979 (for short, the Rules). Consequently, the appeal was held abated. The revision filed by the petitioner did not help him. So he has filed this original petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner adopted a two pronged strategy. He attacks R.10 as invalid being unjust, harsh and unreasonable. If R.10 survives that attack, he contends that it must be given a practical interpretation that date of death means date of knowledge of death so as to make the Rule fair and reasonable. The petitioner had to give up the first strategy since his attack against the constitutional validity of the Rule cannot be countenanced in a petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. So he concentrated on the alternative strategy. R.10 of the Rules reads thus:

(3.) If the application is not filed within the prescribed time, the consequence is abatement of the appeal. The delay in filing the application cannot be condoned under S.5 of the Limitation Act, as held by a Full Bench of this court (Jokkim Fernandez v. Amina Kunhi Umma - 1973 KLT 138 ). Nor can the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority exercise inherent powers to override the statutory provisions in this regard (Sulekha Umma v. Kalaivani - 1985 KLT 1015 ). Thus, there can be little dispute over the draconian character of R.10, if it is construed literally. Still, learned counsel for the contesting respondents advanced a vehement plea for giving literal interpretation to the Rule on the premise that the Rule making authority really intended the Rule to be understood literally. He sought justification for the aforesaid stand from the following facts. The corresponding Rule in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1959 (it was also numbered as R.10) required that the application for making the legal representatives as parties should be preferred within 15 days from the date of death of the person concerned. In 1961, the Government amended the said Rule by substituting the period with 30 days. In 1979, when the present Rules were formulated, the Government again switched back to the shorter period of 15 days. It is contended that the Government would have wished to conform to the legislative intent expressed through S.24 of the Act that proceedings under the Act should be concise and brief and of short duration.