Anilatmajan vs T.K. Manoharan and Others

Radhakrishna Menon, J.—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 based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai 1987 (1) KLT 53. The Supreme Court in the said decision has observed thus:

Sub-section (5) of Section 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 Section 20. There was thereby an implied prohibition or exclusion of a second revision u/s 115 of CPC to the High Court when a revision has been provided u/s 20 of the Act. When Section 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 u/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, u/s 115 of the Code could revise an order once again after revision u/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 Section 18(5) read with Section 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.

(Head Notes)

The order under challenge is one passed u/s 14 of the Act. Section 14 provides that the order passed u/s 11 or Section 13 or Section 19 or Section 33 and every order passed on appeal u/s 18 or on revision u/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 u/s 14 to a decree within the meaning of the CPC 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 u/s 47 CPC However, an order passed u/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 u/s 14, by filing a revision.

But the order, the revisional Court would make is not final as in the case of an order that a revisional Court would make u/s 20. A reference in this connection to Section 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 as provided in Section 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 u/s 20 of the Act. The Supreme Court accordingly observed that the language of the provisions of Section 18(5) read with Section 20 inhibits further revision. There is no such inhibition here. The order, the revisional Court would pass under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act therefore is revisable u/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(2) 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 u/s 115 CPC I am therefore of the view that an order passed under the proviso to Section 14 is revisable u/s 115 Code of Civil Procedure.

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 case as amicus curiae.