Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1988 DIGILAW 222 (KER)

ANILATMAJAN v. MANOHARAN

1988-05-30

RADHAKRISHNA MENON

body1988
Judgment :- 1. The Civil Revision Petition was returned, with a note that no revision against an order made under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for short the 'Act' is maintainable. The above note apparently is bated on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai (1987 (1) K L.T. S3). The Supreme Court in the said decision has observed thus: "Sub-s. (5) of S.18 of the Act clearly stipulates that the decision of the appellate authority and subject to such decision, an order of the Rent Controller 'shall be final' and 'shall not be liable to be called in question in any court of law, except as provided in S.20. There was thereby an implied prohibition or extension of a second revision under S.115 of C.P.C. to the High Court when a revision has been provided under S.20 of the Act. When S.18(5) of the Act specifically states that "shall not be liable to be called in questions in any court of law" except in the manner provided under S.20, it cannot be said that the High Court which is a court of law and which is a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, under S. US of the Code could revise an order once again after revision under S.20 of the Act. That would mean there would be a trial by four courts, that would be repugnant to the scheme manifest in the different sections of the Act in question. Public policy or public interest demands curtailment of law's delay and justice demands finality with quick disposal of case. The language of the provisions of S.18 (5) read with S.20 Inhibits further revision. To vest the High Court with any such jurisdiction would be contrary to the scheme of the Act, would be contrary to the public policy and would be contrary to the legislative intent as manifest from the different sections of the Act." 2. The order under challenge is one passed under S.14 of the Act. To vest the High Court with any such jurisdiction would be contrary to the scheme of the Act, would be contrary to the public policy and would be contrary to the legislative intent as manifest from the different sections of the Act." 2. The order under challenge is one passed under S.14 of the Act. S.14 provides that the order passed under S.11 or S.13 or S.19 or S.33 and every order passed on appeal under S.18 or on revision under S.20, shall be executed by the Munsiff or if there are more than one Munsiff by the Principal Munsiff, having original jurisdiction over the area in which the building is situated as if it were a decree passed by him. To put it differently it is the Munsiff or if there are more than one Munsiff, the Principal Munsiff who will execute the order as if the said order is a decree passed by him. The legislature by a fiction has metamorphosed the order made mention of under S.14 to a decree within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code. The Munsiff thus is executing a decree and ordinarily the order that the Munsiff would pass in such proceedings is subject to further proceedings envisaged under S.47 C.P.C. However, an order passed under S.14 can be challenged only in the manner indicated in the proviso to the Section. The proviso reads: "Provided that an order passed in execution under this section shall not be subject to an appeal but shall be subject to revision by the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the said Munsiff". Under the proviso the aggrieved party thus can challenge the order, the Munsiff would pass under S.14, by filing a revision. 3. But the order, the revisional court would make is not final as in the case of an order that a revisional court would make under S.20, A reference is this connection to S.18(5) of the Act is profitable. It reads: "The decision of the appellate authority, and subject to such decision, an order of the Rent Control Court shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law, except an provided in S.20". It reads: "The decision of the appellate authority, and subject to such decision, an order of the Rent Control Court shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any Court of law, except an provided in S.20". (emphasis supplied) Construing this provision the Supreme Court has observed that a second revision before the High Court is not maintainable because the order in appeal "shall be final and shall not be liable to be called in question in any court of law" except by filing the revision under S.20 of the Act. The Supreme Court accordingly observed that the language of the provisions of S.18(5) read with S.20 inhibits further revision. There is no such inhibition here. The order, the revisional court would pass under the proviso to S.14 of the Act therefore is revisable under S.115 CPC. It should in this connection be remembered that "the Munsiff executes the order passed under the Act not as a persona designata but one filling the office of Munsiff". (See Mammoo v. Krishnan (1978 KLT. 901)). It is by now well established that an order passed by a court subordinate to the High Court is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115 CPC. I am therefore of the view that an order passed under the proviso to S.14 is revisable under S.115 CPC. 4. Accordingly I direct the office to receive the revision, assign a number and send it for admission. Before I part with this order I would like to place on record my appreciation of the assistance, Sri. T. C. Mohandas, Advocate has rendered in this ease at amicus curiae. Allowed.