Cheeru and Others vs Ibrayi

Narendran, J.—The Petitioners in O.P. (R.C.) No 21 of 1974, a Petition for eviction on the file of the Rent Control Court, Badagara are the Petitioners in this Civil Revision Petition. The grievance of the Petitioners is against the order of the District Judge, Kozhikode, who is the Revisional Authority u/s 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965, for short the Act, interfering with the order of the Subordinate Judge, Badagara, the appellate authority u/s 18 of the Act transfering O.P. (R.C.) No. 21 of 1974 to the file of the Rent Control Court, Payyoli. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that u/s 20 of the Act the revisional authority has no power to interfere with an order of transfer of a rent control Petition by the appellate authority by virtue of its powers under Rule 14 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1959, for short the Rules. Learned counsel also contends that the revisional authority went wrong in interfering with the order of transfer because the appellate authority was justified in ordering the transfer as the Petitioners entertained a reasonable apprehension that they will not get justice from the Rent Control Court.

O.P. (R.C.) No. 21 of 1974 was filed for recovery of possession of the building from the Respondent-tenant. Thereupon, the Respondent-tenant filed O.P. (R.C.) No. 26 of 1968 for fixation of fair rent of the building. The Rent Control Court by its order dated 22nd October 1975 running to 24 pages, fixed Rs. 105 as the fair rent. The case of the Petitioners is that in the order fixing the fair rent the Rent Control Court made certain unwanted remarks about the acceptability of the evidence of the 2nd Petitioner who was examined as R.W. 1. As the same witness has to be examined in the Petition for eviction before the same Rent Control Court, the Petitioners entertained a reasonable apprehension that they will not get justice from the Rent Control Court. Hence they moved O.P. No. 11 of 1975 before the appellate authority under Rule 14 of the Rules for a transfer of the Petition for eviction from the Rent Control Court. The appellate authority by order dated 5th March 1976 allowed the Petitioners'' request and transferred the Petition for eviction to the file of the Rent Control Court, Payyoli. From the above order of the appellate authority the Respondent-tenant filed C.R.P. No. 29 of 1976 before the District Judge, Kozhikode who is the revisional authority under the Act. The revisional authority held that the appellate authority was wrong in transferring the Petition for eviction on the ground that the Rent Control Court made certain observations against the 2nd Petitioner in the order on the fair rent Petition and that would create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the Petitioners-landlords that they will not get justice from the Rent Control Court.

Sri P. Ramakrishnan Nair, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, refers to Section 20 of the Act and contends that no revision will lie from an order of transfer by the appellate authority. According to the learned Counsel, the order of transfer is not made by the appellate authority by virtue of any powers vested under the Act. Learned counsel further contends that even if a revision lies, the revisional authority went wrong in interfering with the order of transfer of the appellate authority because when there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of a party that he will not get justice from a court, a transfer of the case from that authority is a must. Learned counsel made extensive reference to the order of the Rent Control Court in the fair rent Petition to show that the Petitioners were justified in moving the appellate authority for a transfer of the Petition for eviction. Shri C.R. Natarajan, learned Counsel for the Respondent, contends that the transfer of a rent control Petition by the appellate authority is also an order passed under the statute as the power is vested by Rule 14 of the Rules. Hence, according to the learned Counsel, a revision will lie from an order of transfer by the appellate authority. It is further contended that there was no justification for the transfer and hence the revisional authority was perfectly right in interfering with that order. Learned counsel contends that some passing remarks made by the Rent Control Court in the order on the fair rent Petition are not by itself sufficient for creating a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the Petitioners-landlords that they will not get justice from the Rent Control Court.

Section 20 of the Act reads:

Revision: - (1) In cases, where the appellate authority empowered u/s 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 propriety of such order or proceedings, and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

(2) The costs of and incident to all proceedings before the High Court or District Court under Sub-section (1) shall be in its discretion.

Rule 14 of the Rules reads:

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.

(i) 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,

(ii) if, on an application for transfer by any party in the care the appellate authority is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for the transfer.

Under Section 20 of the Act, a revision will lie against ''any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act'' by the appellate authority. The section does not restrict the powers of the revisional authority to orders on Petition for eviction and fair rent Petitions. Under Rule 14, the appellate authority is invested with power to transfer a rent control Petition if it is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for the transfer or if the Rent Control Court is personally interested in the matter. No doubt, the power of transfer of the appellate authority is a statutory power and a revision will lie u/s 20 of the Act to the revisional authority from an order of transfer under Rule 14 of the Rules. The further question is whether the revisional authority was justified in interfering with the order of transfer in this case. It is clear from the order on the fair rent Petition that the Rent Control Court was to a great extent obsessed with the idea that the Petitioners-landlords are persons who are highly influential and persons who are in a position to get things done out of the way Normally, a Rent Control Court is not expected to travel so far in deciding a fair rent Petition. It cannot be said that the Petitioners-landlords cannot have a reasonable apprehension that they will not get justice from the Rent Control Court and in such a circumstance the appellate authority was not in the wrong in transferring the Petition for eviction to another Rent Control Court. There was nothing illegal, irregular or improper in the transfer and the revisional authority went wrong in exercising its jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer made by the appellate authority.

In the result, the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.