Kerala High Court

Bijimon vs Bijimon on 29 January, 2021

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                                    &

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

       FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

                        RCRev..No.147 OF 2018

   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-03-2018 IN RCA NO.31/2017 OF RENT
       CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT JUDGE), ALAPPUZHA

    AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2017 IN IA NO.1324/2017 IN RCP
NO.35/2015 OF PRINCIPAL RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT),
                              CHERTHALA


REV. PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3/PETITIONERS:

      1      BIJIMON
             S/O.C.G.VIJAYAN, KARTHIKA NIVAS,
             CHENNAM PALLIPPURAM MURI,
             PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE.

      2      AJIMON
             S/O.C.G.VIJAYAN, KARTHIKA NIVAS,
             CHENNAM PALLIPPURAM MURI,
             PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE.

      3      SHIJIMON
             S/O.C.G.VIJAYAN,KARTHIKA NIVAS,
             CHENNAM PALLIPPURAM MURI,
             PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE.

             BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 4 TO 7/RESPONDENTS:

      1      UDAYABHANU
             S/O.VASU, SWAYAMPRABHA MANDIRAM,
             CHERTHALA KIZHAKKUM MURI,
             KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
             ALAPPUZHA-688 527.
 R.C.Rev.No.147 of 2018                2

         2        KUNJAMMA JOSEPH
                  W/O.JOSEPH
                  THEKKEPARAMBIL, VADAKKUM MURI,
                  CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE,
                  ALAPPUZHA-688 527.

         3        BEJOY DEVASIA, S/O.DEVASIA
                  PUTHENPURAYIL, CHERTHALA KIZHAKKUM MURI,
                  KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-688 527.

         4        SARADA, W/O.KESAVAN
                  PUTHENPURAYIL, CHERTHALA KIZHAKKUM MURI,
                  KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-688 527.

         5        MAMACHAN, S/O.M.M.JOSEPH
                  MADHURATHIL, PANAVALLY MURI, PANAVALLY VILLAGE,
                  ALAPPUZHA-688 526.

                  R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN
                  R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

           THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION         HAVING COME UP FOR
      ADMISSION   ON   21-01-2021, THE       COURT   ON  29.01.2021
      PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.C.Rev.No.147 of 2018                        3

                                                                        "C.R."


                         A.HARIPRASAD & T.V.ANILKUMAR, JJ.
                               --------------------------------------
                                   R.C.R.No.147 of 2018
                               --------------------------------------
                         Dated this the 29th day of January, 2021

                                          ORDER

Hariprasad, J.

Revision petitioners, who are siblings, filed altogether five petitions

seeking eviction of their tenants under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, "the B.R.C.

Act") on the grounds of bonafide need for own occupation and

reconstruction. According to them, they wanted to construct a multi-storied

commercial building as a joint venture after demolishing the existing

building. Pursuant to an administrative order, three eviction petitions were

retained before the Principal Rent Control Court, Cherthala and two were

made over to the Additional Rent Control Court. Petitioners approached

the Principal Rent Control Court, Cherthala by filing a petition under

Sections 24 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short,

"CPC") and Section 6(3) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act,1957 (in short, "Act

of 1957") seeking the withdrawal of two petitions from Additional Rent

Control Court to the Principal Rent Control Court.

2. After hearing both sides, the Principal Rent Control Court

allowed the application for withdrawal of two cases as requested by the

petitioners. Principal Rent Control Court rightly found that Section 24 of

CPC is inapplicable because the general power of transfer and withdrawal

can be invoked only by the High Court or the District Court. However, the

Principal Rent Control Court drawing power from Section 6(3) of the Act of

1957 allowed the request of the petitioners.

3. One of the tenants, aggrieved by the order passed by the

Principal Rent Control Court, Cherthala, approached the Rent Control

Appellate Authority (District Judge), Alappuzha by filing an appeal under

Section 18 of the B.R.C.Act. As per the impugned judgment, the learned

District Judge (Appellate Authority) found that Section 6(3) of the Act of

1957 does not confer any power on the Rent Control Court to transfer or

withdraw any case to another Rent Control Court. On that reasoning the

appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Principal Rent Control

Court on the application filed at the behest of the petitioners was set aside.

4. Heard Shri B.Pramod, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Shri T.Jayakrishnan, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. At the outset, we express our agreement with the reasoning

adopted by the learned District Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority) to

find that the Principal Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to transfer or

withdraw a case from the Additional Rent Control Court.

6. Section 6 of the Act of 1957 deals with the constitution of

Courts of Principal and Additional Subordinate Judge and Munsiff. Section

6(1) of the Act of 1957 says that when more than one Subordinate Judge

is appointed to a Subordinate Judge's Court, or more than one Munsiff is

appointed to a Munsiff's Court, one of the Subordinate Judges or Munsiffs

shall be appointed the Principal Subordinate Judge or the Principal Munsiff

and the others Additional Subordinate Judges or Additional Munsiffs, as

the case may be. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act of 1957

specifically says that each of the Judges or Munsiffs appointed to the

respective Courts may exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the

Court.

7. Sub-section (3) to Section 6 is the provision wrongly applied

in this case. It says that subject to the general or special orders of the

District Judge, the Principal Subordinate Judge or the Principal Munsiff

may from time to time make such arrangements as he thinks fit for the

distribution of business of the Court among the various Judges or

Munsiffs thereof.

8. On a reading of Section 6(3) of the Act of 1957 it will be clear

that what is intended thereunder is to empower the Principal Subordinate

Judge or Principal Munsiff to issue administrative directions for proper

distribution of judicial work. Such distribution of work by the Principal

Subordinate Judge or Principal Munsiff may be done only subect to the

general or special orders of the District Judge. Administrative directions so

issued for the distribution of business of the court is different from

exercising a power to withdraw or transfer cases once distributed in

accordance with the general or special orders of the District Judge.

9. Importantly, Rent Control Court is not a creation of the Act of

1957. Instead, it is constituted under Section 3 of the B.R.C. Act. Section

3(1) explicitly says that the Government may, by notification in the

Gazettee, appoint a person who is or is qualified to be appointed, a

Munsiff to be the Rent Control Court for such local areas as may be

specified therein. It goes without saying that the Rent Control Court is a

creation of the statute. Section 23 of the B.R.C. Act enumerates the

powers conferred on the Rent Control Court. B.R.C. Act does not confer

any power on the Principal Rent Control Court to withdraw a case from

Additional Rent Control Court. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate

Authority is right in holding that Section 6(3) of the Act of 1957 has no

bearing on the issue. Likewise, Section 151 of CPC also cannot be

invoked by a Rent Control Court.

10. The most vital provision in the relevant subordinate legislation

has been lost sight of by the Principal Rent Control Court. Rule 14 of the

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979 (in short, "the

Rules") reads thus:

"An appellate Authority may transfer a case from the

file of one Rent Control Court to that of another Rent

Control Court within his jurisdiction.

(1) If the Rent Control Court on whose file the case is

pending is personally interested in it and reports the matter

to the Appellate Authority; or

(2) if, on an application for transfer by any party in the

case, the Appellate Authority is satisfied that there are

sufficient grounds for the transfer."

It is therefore evident that the Rent Control Appellate Authority alone is

bestowed with the jurisdiction to transfer eviction petitions from one Rent

Control Court to another Rent Control Court within its jurisdiction. To this

extent the reasoning adopted by the Appellate Authority is legally correct.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that this

revision is liable to be dismissed for the above reason and the remedy

available to the petitioners is to approach the Rent Control Appellate

Authority with an appropriate application under Rule 14 of the Rules. It is

also pointed out by the learned counsel that the tenants have serious

disputes regarding triability of the eviction petitions jointly. We do not

intend to embark upon that factual issue in this revision. All such

questions are left open to be decided by the appropriate Rent Control