Ajayakumar v. Muhammed Pathummal Nabeeesa Beevi

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943** **R.C.REV.NO.26 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2021 IN RC(RP)NO.1 OF 2019 PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REVERSING THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2018 IN E.A NO.522 OF 2018 IN E.P.No.285 of 2017 IN O.P(BRC)No.2 of 2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, NEYYATTINKARA** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** **AJAYAKUMAR AGED 49 YEARS S/O.GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT DEEPA BHAVAN, KAKKAMOOLA, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695042 BY ADVS. J.R.PREM NAVAZ SUMEEN S.** ## **RESPONDENT:** **MUHAMMED PATHUMMAL NABEESA BEEVI AGED 73 YEARS RESIDING AT JUNAIDA MANDIRAM, NEAR NSS KARAYOGAM, VAZHUTHOOR DESAM, NEYYATTINKARA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695121** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 R.C.Rev.No.26 of 2022 ## **“CR”** ## **O R D E R** ## Anil K. Narendran, J The petitioner, who is the respondent-tenant in O.P. (BRC)No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Neyyatinkara and the applicant-judgment debtor in E.A.No.522 of 2018 in E.P.No.285 of 2017 in O.P. (BRC)No.2 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyatinkara, has filed this Rent Control Revision, invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking an order to set aside the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Thiruvananthapuram, dated 23.10.2021 in R.C.(RP)No.1 of 2019, arising out of the order dated 02.11.2018 of the Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyatinkara in E.A.No.522 of 2018 in E.P.No.285 of 2017 in O.P.(BRC) No.2 of 2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of maintainability of this Rent Control Revision. 3. In O.P.(BRC) No.2 of 2015 the Rent Control Court, Neyyattinkara, granted an order of eviction under Section 3 ## R.C.Rev.No.26 of 2022 11(2)(b) of the Act, on 13.03.2017. The tenant failed to deposit the arrears of rent, as provided under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act. The landlord filed E.P.No.285 of 2017 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, seeking execution of the order of eviction in O.P.(BRC)No.2 of 2015. Then the tenant filed E.A.No.522 of 2018 in E.P.No.285 of 2017 seeking permission to deposit the arrears of rent. The Principal Munsiff Court, i.e., the execution court, allowed E.A.No.522 of 2018, by the order dated 02.11.2018. The landlord challenged that order by filing a revision petition, i.e., R.C.(RP)No.1 of 2019 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed R.C.(RP)No.1 of 2019, by the order dated 23.10.2021, setting aside the order of the execution court dated 02.11.2018 in E.A.No.522 of 2018 in E.P.No.285 of 2017. By the said order, the execution court was directed to expedite the proceedings in E.P.No.285 of 2017 in O.P.(BRC) No.2 of 2015. Challenging the order dated 23.10.2021 of the Appellate Authority in R.C.(RP)No.1 of 2019, the landlord is before this Court in this Rent Control Revision filed under Section 20 of the Act. 4 ## R.C.Rev.No.26 of 2022 4. The order dated 02.11.2018 of the Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara in E.A.No.522 of 2018 in E.P.No.285 of 2017 in O.P.(BRC) No.2 of 2015 is one issued by that Court under Section 14 of the Act, which deals with execution of orders. As per Section 14, every order made under Section 11 or Section 12 or Section 13 or Section 19 or Section 33 and every order passed on appeal under Section 18 or on revision under Section 20 shall, after the expiry of the time allowed therein 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. As per the proviso to Section 14, an order passed in execution under this section shall not be subject to an appeal but shall be subject to revision by the c ourt to which appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the said Munsiff. Invoking the provisions under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act, the petitioner challenged the order dated 02.11.2018 in E.A.No.522 of 2018 in E.P.No.285 of 2017 in O.P.(BRC) No.2 of 2015 of the Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, by filing R.C.(RP)No.1 of 2019 before the Rent 5 ## R.C.Rev.No.26 of 2022 Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. 5. Section 18 of the Act deals with appeal. As per Section 18(1)(b) of the Act, any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. In computing the thirty days aforesaid, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded. As per Section 18(5) of the Act, 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 as provided in section 20. 6. Section 20 of the Act deals with revision. As per Section 20(1) of the Act, in cases where the appellate authority empowered under S ection 18 is a Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and in other cases, the High Court, may, at any time, on the application of any aggrieved party, call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act by such authority for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or 6 ## R.C.Rev.No.26 of 2022 propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. Therefore, a revision under Section 20(1) of the Act can be entertained only against the orders passed by the Appellate Authority in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 18 of the Act. An order passed by the Appellate Authority in a revision filed under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act, against an order passed by the Munsiff or Principal Munsiff, as the case may be, in execution under Section 14, is not an order revisable under Section 20(1) of the Act. 7. In **Thankamma v. Krishna Pillai [1990 (1) KLT** **664** ] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that, the emphasis in all the decisions of the Apex Court, as explained in **Jetha Bai and Sons v. Sunderdas Rathenai [1988 (1) SCC** **722]** , is an anxiety to reduce the delay in disposal of cases by reasonable reduction in the number of fora. Against orders under Section 11 of the Kerala (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, an appeal under Section 18 and a revision under Section 20 of the Act were found to provide sufficient opportunities to the aggrieved litigant. The Division Bench 7 ## R.C.Rev.No.26 of 2022 opined that same reasoning in restricting the number of fora has to be followed in the matter of execution of orders of the Rent Control Court. This shall be in spite of the presence or absence of provision relating to finality as contained in Section 18(5) of the Act. An ordinary civil litigant gets only one opportunity to call in question orders of the executing courts. Section 14 of the Act also provides such an opportunity. The Division Bench held that revisional order in execution is not liable to be further revised under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 8. In **Thankamma [1990 (1) KLT 664** ] the Division Bench noticed that, it is true that there is nothing in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which precludes the High Court from exercising its revisional jurisdiction in relation to any order passed by any court subordinate to it. This argument cannot be countenanced in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in **Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai [(1987) 1 SCC 183]** and **Jetha Bai and Sons v. Sunderdas Rathenai [1988 (1) SCC 722]** . Though Section 20 of the Act provides for a revision to the District Court and there are no 8 ## R.C.Rev.No.26 of 2022 words limiting the power of the High Court in Section 115 of the Code, the Apex Court held, that a second revision will not be entertained. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division Bench noticed that, what is sought to be revised is a revisional order of the District Court. A second revision to the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure having been frowned upon in specific terms in the two decisions of the Apex Court referred to supra, for the reason that public policy and public interest require speedier disposal of rent control cases, it is not possible now to hold that in execution proceedings under Section 14 of the Act a second revision is permissible. The Division Bench held that, a revisional order passed by the District Court under Section 20 of the Kerala (Buildings Lease and Rent Control) Act, in execution proceedings, is not liable to be further revised in a second revision by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 115 of the Code. A second revision is not maintainable, from orders passed by the Munsiff, under, Section 14 of the Act and which was the subject of revision under Section 20 of the Act. The High Court has got power of superintendence over all courts under Article 9 ## R.C.Rev.No.26 of 2022 227 of the Constitution of India. Even if a second revision is not entertainable, it is open to the High Court in cases of manifest injustice and other like causes to revise orders of subordinate courts. The power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is sufficient and effective safeguard even in the absence of a second revision under Section 115 of the Code. 9. When, the order passed by the Appellate Authority in a revision filed under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act, against an order passed by the Munsiff or Principal Munsiff, as the case may be, in execution under Section 14, is not an order revisable under Section 20(1) of the Act, the remedy open to the petitioner is to challenge the order dated 23.10.2021 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, in R.C.(RP)No.1 of 2019, by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on permissible grounds. 10. In such circumstances, this Rent Control Revision is dismissed as not maintainable; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 10 ## R.C.Rev.No.26 of 2022 23.10.2021 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Thiruvananthapuram, in R.C.(RP)No.1 of 2019 by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, on permissible grounds. Registry shall return the certified copy of the order dated 23.10.2021 in R.C(R.P.)No.1 of 2019 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram and the order dated 02.11.2018 in E.A.No.522 of 2018 in E.P.No.285 of 2017 of the Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyatinkara to the learned counsel for the petitioner, forthwith, after retaining attested copy of the those orders in the Judges papers. ## Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** PV