9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is maintainable against an interim order passed by the Rent Control Court. 2. Whether the Rent Control Court is considered a "Court" or a "persona designata." 3. Applicability of Section 115 of the CPC to decisions made by the Rent Control Court. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC: The central issue addressed in this judgment is whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC can be filed against an interim order passed by the Rent Control Court. The petitioner argued that since the order in question was procedural and not appealable, a revision petition under Section 115 CPC should be maintainable. However, the court concluded that even though the Rent Control Court is a "Court" and not a "persona designata," it is not a Civil Court within the meaning of Section 115 CPC. Therefore, a revision petition under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against an interim order of the Rent Control Court. 2. Rent Control Court: Court or Persona Designata: The judgment extensively discusses whether the Rent Control Court is a "Court" or a "persona designata." The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Gopalan v. Aboobacker, which held that the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority are not persona designata but are Courts. This view was reinforced by the decision in Abdul Rehiman v. Hameed Hassan Peruvad, which followed the Supreme Court's ruling. The court concluded that the Rent Control Court is indeed a "Court" for certain purposes, such as the applicability of the Limitation Act. 3. Applicability of Section 115 CPC: For Section 115 CPC to apply, the court in question must be a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court. The judgment clarified that the Rent Control Court, although a "Court," is not a full-fledged Civil Court governed by the CPC. The court cited various precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli, which held that certain tribunals, even if they function judicially, are not Civil Courts under the CPC. The court also referred to the Full Bench decision in Ouseph Vareed v. Mary, which stated that Rent Control Courts and Appellate Authorities are special tribunals and do not form part of the hierarchy of established Civil Courts. Conclusion: The court concluded that the Rent Control Court, although a "Court," is not a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 115 CPC. Consequently, a revision petition under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against an interim order passed by the Rent Control Court. The revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue other legally available remedies, such as a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
|
