9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to the Division Bench. 2. Revision-petitioner herein was the respondent in Rent Control Proceedings R. C. P. No. 111 of 1995 before the Rent Control Court, Kannur. The eviction petition was filed by the respondent/landlord on the assumption that he is entitled to apply for eviction. Revision-petitioner filed O.S. No. 265 of 1995 before the Munsiff's Court, Kannur. Respondent/landlord is the second defendant in the above suit. The contention in the above case was that the revision-petitioner/tenant is not a tenant but he is the owner entitled to deal with the properties. Since the Rent Control Petition as well the suit, O.S. No. 265 of 1995, came before the same Munsiff, petitioner filed I.A. No. 2430 of 1996 in the R.C.P. praying for joint trial of the Rent Control Petition along with the suit. The Rent Control Court rejected the above application holding that such joint trial is improper. According to the Court, if a joint trial is ordered it virtually amounts to consolidation of the cases and only one judgment can be pronounced, but the Appellate Authorities are different. Accordingly the application for joint trial was rejected. While rejecting the applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that Rent Control Court is a Court and when a non-appealable order is passed by that Court, a revision petition under Section 115 will lie. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gopalan v. Aboobacker, (1995) 2 KLJ 205 : (1995) 2 KLJ 136, wherein it was held that Rent Control Court is not a persona designata and it is a Court for the purpose of Limitation Act. It was held in the above case that the District Judge functioning as an Appellate Authority is not a 'persona designate' and even if concerned District Judge retires or gets transfer, otherwise ceases to hold the office of the District Judge, his successor-in-office can pick up the thread of the proceedings from the stage where it was left by his predecessor and can function as an Appellate Authority under Section 18. Therefore it is obvious that while adjudicating upon the dispute between the landlord and tenant and while deciding the question whether the Rent Control Court's order is justified or not such Appellate Authorities would be functioning as Courts. The above decision was followed in Abdul Rehiman v. Ham ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the Supreme Court reported in (1995) 2 KLJ 205. 4. In Abdul Rehiman v. Hameed Hassan Peruvad (1995) 2 KLJ 794, learned single Judge of this Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in (1995) 2 KLJ 205. In view of the binding pronouncement of the Supreme Court it can be clearly stated that Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority under the Rent Act cannot be called a persona designata, but it is a Court. But that will not be enough for attracting the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. For application of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it should be a Court subordinate to the High Court. Which is a Court subordinate to the High Court is mentioned in Section 3 of the C.P.C. which reads as follows: 3. Subordination of Courts -- For the purposes of this Code, the District Court is subordinate to the High Court, and every Civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a District Court and every Court of Small Causes is subordinate to the High Court and District Court. Therefore, for attracting Section 115 of the C.P.C. it should be a Civil Court and provisions of the C.P.C. should be applicable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows: In order to support his contention Mr. Nariman invited our attention to the relevant provisions of the Rent Act, namely, Sections 20 22 23 as well as second proviso to Section 11(1) and contended that a Rent Court functioning under the Rent Control Act is not a full-fledged civil Court. If it was full fledged civil Court there would have been no occasion for the Legislature to provide that certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will govern such proceedings. To that extent Mr. Nariman is right. We will proceed on the basis that Rent Court functioning under the Rent Act or for that matter the appellate authority disputes between landlords and tenants in a judicial manner may not be considered strictly as civil Courts fully governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. In Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli, AIR 1969 SC 1335:(1970) 1 SCR 51 it was held by the Supreme Court that Labour Court is not a Court as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure. This decision was considered and accepted by the Supreme Court in Gopalan's case, (1995) 2 KLT 205. In that case a Bench of two Judges of the Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different divisions relates to proceedings which are to be filed before full fledged civil or criminal Courts as the case may be. First Division deals with suits. Part I deals with suits relating to accounts. Part II deals with suits relating to contracts. Part III deals with suits relating to declarations. Part IV deals with suits relating to decrees and instruments. Part V deals with suits relating to immovable property. Part VI deals with suits relating to movable property. Part VII deals with suits relating to tort. Part VIII deals with suits relating to trusts and trust property, Part IX deals with suits relating to miscellaneous matters. Part X deals with suits for which there is no prescribed period. It is obvious that provisions of these parts in first division will govern suits to be filed before regular Courts functioning under Civil Procedure Code. When we turn to the second division it deals with appeals which may be filed under Civil Procedure Code or Criminal Procedure Code or from a decree or order of any High Court to the same Court. They would obviously refer to appeals before regular, Civil or Criminal Courts or High Courts as the case may be. The third division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsona designata, Court also observed as follows: Now the question is as to whether the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this revision petition under Section 115, CPC, as against the order passed by the Munsiff functioning under the provisions of the Act, is maintainable, is to be accepted or not. In my opinion, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel, that the correctness or otherwise of the order under attack, can be considered by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. It will be seen that Section 22(6) of the Act clearly states that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Munsiff is subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules. 9. In Leela v. Pushpam, (1996) 2 KLT 350, it was held by one of us (Koshy, J.) that even though the Munsiff hearing the election petition under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act is not a persona designata, it is not a Court as contemplated under Section 115, C.P.C. and, therefore, revision petition is not maintainable from the interim orders of the Munsiff who is acting as an Election Tribunal under the Panchayat Raj Act even though such interim orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o proceedings under the Act and, therefore, application for eviction cannot be maintained against a firm in the firm name. In various decisions including the decision in Ebrahim Ismail Kunju v. Phasila Beevi it was held by this Court that if there be no statutory prohibition, the Tribunal should, therefore, normally be in a position to ordain its affairs and modulate its procedures in such a manner as to best subserve the interest of the public and in particular the litigant public. 13. In the Reference Order a decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ouseph Vareed v. Mary is mentioned where it was held that in exercising the revisional power under Section 20 of the Act the revisional authority, viz., the District Court, functions as a Court and that the ordinary incidents of the procedure of that Court, including any rights of appeal or revision, will attach to the decision rendered by the District Court in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Section 20. Apex Court overruled this decision in Aundal Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 203:(1987) 1 Ker LT 53 and held that a second revision will not lie under Section 115 of the C.P.C. from such order. But, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
