A V KAMMATH Vs. CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners challenge the common order passed by the District Court, Ernakulam, in R.C.R.P. Nos. 111/86 and 9/87. Proceedings were initiated by the first respondent under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' to recover buildings bearing Door Nos. 2600 and 2602 in Ward No. 37 of Cochin Corporation from respondents 2 and 3, tenants of the building, and petitioners who are the subtenants. Recovery was sought u/Ss. 11(3), 11(4)(iii) and 11(5) of the Act. That claim of the first respondent was disputed by the tenants and the subtenants. By Ext. P2 order the Rent Control Court came to the conclusion that the need of own occupation asserted by the landlord is reasonable, honest and genuine and that the tenants have constructed another building which is reasonably sufficient to meet their requirements of business. It was further found that the landlord has no building of his own with facilities for expanding his present business. In view of these findings, the tenants and the subtenants who were respondents before the Rent Control Court were directed to surrender vacant possession of the building u/Ss.11(3) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act.

(2.) The original tenants challenged the order of the Rent Control Court in R.C.A. 83/84. The subtenants took up the matter before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A. 42/85. The Appellate Authority by Ext. P3 common judgment dismissed the appeals. The original tenants filed R.C.R.P. 111/86 challenging the decision of the Appellate Authority. The subtenants in their turn preferred R.C.R.P. 9/87. The Second Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, by Ext. P6 common order dismissed the revision petitions upholding the order of eviction passed u/Ss.11(3) and 11(4) (iii) of the Act. The subtenants challenge Ext. P6 order in this original petition.

(3.) This original petition is filed both under Art.226 and 227 of the Constitution. However, I am dealing with it only as one under Art.227. This is for the reason that the District Court functioning under S.20 of the Act acts as a civil court. It has been so held by this court in Vareed v. Mary, 1968 KLT 583 . This part of the judgment in Vareed's case has not been overruled by the Supreme Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai, 1987 (1) KLT 53 . In such circumstances the order of the District Court being the decision of a civil court is not liable to be quashed by the issue of a writ of certiorari as held in the decision of this court in Nallakoya v. Administrator ( 1968 KLT 60 ). A writ petition under Art.226 will not therefore, lie and hence this petition can be treated only as one under Art.227.