Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 733 (KER)

P. Devasahayam S/o. Paul v. G. Sudhakaran Nair

2017-04-11

K.HARILAL, RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2017
ORDER : Harilal, J. The revision petitioner is the tenant against whom the respondent filed R.C.P. No.62 of 2005 seeking an order for fixation of fair rent. The parties are referred to as the landlord and tenant respectively. 2. In the Rent Control Petition, the landlord was examined as PW1 on 3.10.2016 and Exts.A1 to A2 and Ext.B1 to B12 were marked on his side. The tenant filed I.A.No.10309 of 2006 alleging that at the time of examining the landlord, he had given false evidence before the Rent Control Court. The tenant filed the above application for prosecuting the landlord for offence punishable under section 193 of the IPC and requested the court to proceed against the landlord under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The landlord filed objection contending that such an application for prosecution would not lie before the Rent Control Court. He also denied the allegation that he has given false evidence before the trial court. According to him, the application is intended to cause delay in disposal of the Rent Control Petition. He also contended that the rent was in arrears. 4. After considering the materials on record, the Rent Control Court allowed the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord preferred the R.C.A No.16 of 2015 before the Appellate Authority. After re-appreciating the materials on record, the Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the application on a finding that the application itself is not maintainable. The revision petition is filed challenging the legality and propriety of the said findings of the Appellate Authority. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the landlord and the learned counsel for the tenant. 6. In view of the submissions made at the Bar, the question to be considered is whether the Rent Control Court has jurisdiction and power to initiate prosecution against a person for offences punishable under section 193 of the IPC on the allegation that he has given false evidence in a proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for brevity 'the Act'). 7. Here the offence alleged is punishable under section 193 of the IPC. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a relevant provision which prescribes offences for which court or tribunal can initiate prosecution against a person for offences against public justice and offences relating to documents given in evidence. 7. Here the offence alleged is punishable under section 193 of the IPC. Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a relevant provision which prescribes offences for which court or tribunal can initiate prosecution against a person for offences against public justice and offences relating to documents given in evidence. Offence punishable under section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is specifically mentioned under section 195(1)(b) of the Code as an offence for which prosecution can be initiated for giving false evidence. But further section 195(3) says that in clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of the section. Since the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 Act is a State Act, a declaration under the said Act is required for empowering the Rent Control Court for the purpose of section 195. Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes a procedure under which prosecution can be initiated under section 195. 8. Let us examine whether there is any such declaration empowering the Rent Control Court for the purpose of proceeding under section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 23(2) of the Act is the only provision empowering the Rent Control Court to proceed against a person who has allegedly committed offence affecting administration of justice and the said provision reads as follows: "Section 23(2) The Accommodation Controller, the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority may summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to it to be material, and it shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of Sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act 5 of 1898)." 9. The Act 2 of 1974 has repelled the old Act of 1898. It is pertinent to note that no corresponding change has been made in this provision by substituting section 345 and 346 of the Code, after the commencement of Act 2 of 1974. 10. Let us examine as to whether the proceedings under sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be initiated against the person under section 345 for the offence punishable under section 193 of the IPC. 10. Let us examine as to whether the proceedings under sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be initiated against the person under section 345 for the offence punishable under section 193 of the IPC. On a close analysis of the section 345 it could be seen that jurisdictional power under section 345 is confined to section 175, 178, 179, 180 and 228 of the IPC. Section 193 does not find a place in section 345 or 346. In short, the Rent Control Court is not empowered to initiate prosecution for the offences punishable under section 193 of the IPC on the allegation that false evidence has been given during the course of proceedings. 11. In the above analysis, we find that the appellate court is justified in setting aside the findings of the lower court on a finding that the prosecution itself is not maintainable. This petition is dismissed.