KUNJAMMA Vs. GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge as he considered that the question involved in this case is of general importance which requires to be heard by a Bench of this Court. The question relates to the interpretation of the proviso to S.14 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short the Act'), regarding proper forum for preferring a revision.

(2.) Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision are these: An order of eviction has been passed by a Rent Control Court, which was confirmed in appeal. After the death of the landlord, one of his sons (the present respondent) filed an execution petition on behalf of himself and also as the power of attorney-holder of his brother, being the legal representatives of their deceased father. Without issuing any notice to the tenant (judgment debtor) the Munsiff has ordered delivery on 8-1-1979 and the Amin reported that the delivery was effected on 8-1-1979. The judgment debtor had challenged the said order for delivery and also the report of the Amin. He filed E.A. No. 64 of 1979 before the Munsiff's Court for setting aside the delivery kychit holding that the delivery has not been actually effected. Alternatively he prayed for a re-delivery, in case the delivery is found to have been validly effected. The Munsiff has allowed the said E. A. and set aside delivery and also the delivery kychit. He ordered the E. P. to be re-admitted to the file. Against the said order of the Munsiff, an application was filed by the present respondent before the Sub Court, Kottarakara for revision under S.14 of the Act. The said revision was allowed by the Sub Judge as per his order dated 25-6-1980. It is that order which is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Sub Judge, Kottarakka has no jurisdiction to entertain a revision under S.14 of the Act.