K V JOSEPH Vs. DEVAYANI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHAMMED, J. :- In this writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act the respondents raised a preliminary point that this appeal is not maintainable for the reason that the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge in sum and substance is an order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Before examining the appeal on merits we would prefer to adjudicate this preliminary issue at the outset.

(2.) The basic facts required for the present purpose are stated hereunder : The appellants are tenants in respect of the 'buildings' sought to be evicted by the respondents-landlords in a proceeding under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). These 'buildings' are actually rooms forming part of a larger building owned by the landlord. The Rent Control Court after enquiry ordered eviction on the ground of reconstruction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The Rent Control Appellate Authority in appeal under Section 18 of the Act found that the ground of reconstruction was bona fide and accordingly the eviction order was upheld. The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the revision petition filed by the tenants under Section 20 of the Act directed the landlord to obtain necessary sanction from the Alappuzha Development Authority before the orders are put in execution and also fresh licence or renewal of the licence as per the order dated 29th June, 1994. Subsequently the landlord filed Eviction Petition before the Execution Court - Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha which was allowed. Thereafter a revision was filed by the tenants before the Additional District Judge, Alappuzha and that was allowed as per the order dated 14-8-1995. As against the said order, the landlord filed a writ petition O.P. No. 14665 of 1995. The landlord also filed O.P. No. 14213 of 1995 as against the rejection of the application for renewal of construction by the Alappuzha Municipality. The learned single Judge after hearing both these petitions dismissed O.P. No. 14665 of 1995 and allowed O.P. No. 14213 of 1995 as per judgment dated 13th March, 1997. Since the judgment delivered by this Court in O.P. No. 14665 of 1995 was under Article 227 of the Constitution, the landlord did not file a writ appeal. However, the said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1270 of 1998. The Supreme Court by judgment dated 20-2-1998 (Ext.P2) allowed substitution of the legal heirs of the original landlord who died pendente lite and set aside the judgment in O.P. No. 14665 of 1995 and restored the order passed by the executing Court. Subsequently the legal heirs of the deceased landlord filed application for restoration of execution petition before the Rent Controller (Principal Munsiff) and it was allowed as per the order dated 6-8-1998 (Ext.P3) and posted the case for delivery of the property. As against that order the tenants filed revisionR.C.R.P. No. 2 of 1998 under Section 14 of the Act. The said revision was also dismissed by the order dated 15-9-1998 (Ext.P5). Being dissatisfied with the said orders (Exts.P3 and P5) the tenants filed the writ petition O.P. No. 19363 of 1998. The learned single Judge by the order dated 27th November, 1998 dismissed the said writ petition. It is against the said judgment this writ appeal has been filed.

(3.) Section 14 of the Act is as follows :"