1. A Division Bench of this Court in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 848) declared Ss.5, 6 and 8 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965) ultra vires the Constitution of India and held them void and violative of Arts.14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The legislative interdiction against receiving anything in excess of the fair rent even from a willing tenant in accordance with the prevailing rate of rent in the locality was held to be an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on business envisaged in Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution. S.5 it was felt cannot stand alone without subsidiary and incidental provisions for periodical revision of the fair rent. This Court held the legislative scheme provided through Ss.5, 6 and 8 is a package and are mutually dependent and that one provision therefrom cannot be extricated from the other two to keep it alone alive.

2. Issac Ninan's case was later reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Jan Enterprises v. Aegee Enterprises (2000 (1) KLT 20) and in Mathew Mathew v. Bhaskaran & Ors. (2000 (1) KLJ 302) and referred to by the Apex Court in Raghavan v. Habeeb Mohammed & Ors. ((2000) 10 SCC 180). Issac Ninan's case was however distinguished in George v. Narayani (1998 (1) KLT 239). Relying on the provisions of S.11(4)(iv) of the Act and learned Single Judge of this Court P.K.Balasubramanian, J. (as he then was) held that even if S.5 is taken to be not available, that does not in any manner deprive the Rent Controller of his jurisdiction to fix the fair rent in cases coming under S.11(4)(iv) of the Act because the Court while ordering reconstruction has also to order that the landlord is bound to put the tenant in possession of the reconstructed building on a fair rent to be paid by the tenant to the landlord.

3. The Division Bench which heard Issac Ninan's case was not unconcerned about the necessity of a forum for resolution of disputes as to fair rent. The Bench passed the following order on 3.1.1996.

Shri. P.C. Chacko, Senior Advocate, instructed on behalf of the petitioner is present. This is posted as desired by the Additional Advocate General for reporting to the court regarding the steps taken by the Government on the emergency basis for filling up the vacuum arising from the judgment dated 2.11.1995. It was represented before us by the Additional Advocate General that immediate steps would be taken for promulgating an ordinance incorporating provisions for fixing fair rent under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. This posting is for reporting the matter to us. But Shri. Mohammed Yousuff, learned Government Pleader who is present submitted that there is nothing to report now. But he requested us to give one more posting and said that in the meanwhile some concrete information could be obtained from the Government. On this assurance we post it to 9.1.1996 in the Chambers.

Case was posted on 9.1.1996 and then to 23.1.1996. On 23.1.1996 the learned Advocate General informed the Bench that the Government is contemplating steps to be taken for amending the provisions relating to fair rent in the Rent Control Act which remains a dead letter even now.

4. In Issac Ninan's case right of the landlord to get fair rent was established. Lex semper dabit remedium - meaning if a man has a right, he must have a means to vindicate and maintain it. Lack of forum for fixation of fair rent put Issac Ninan and the litigant public to considerable agony. Many a tenant and landlord approached the Civil Court for panacea. Civil Court at least some of them closed their doors and refused to adjudicate them on the ground of maintainability, few others took contrary view and granted some solace. Original Petition No.5485/99 was filed before this Court for setting aside judgments passed by the Principle Munsiff, Trichur in O.S. 2121/97 and also by the First Additional Munsiff, Trichur in O.S. 2120 of 1997 holding that Civil Courts do