Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Heard Mr. Mathew Vadakkeparambil, party-in-person, N. Sukumaran for second respondent, Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for fourth respondent and Mr. S. Parameswaran, Amicus Curiae.

2. This is a petition for Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Art 132 & 133 of the Constitution of India and R.221 of the Kerala High Court Rules t the petitioner tenant, from the judgment dated 9.2.2000 of this Bench in O.P. 25855/9 According to the petitioner the impugned judgment raises many substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. Petitioner is a tenant under the second respondent. The petition was filed for fixation of fair rent by the tenant. In view of the ruling reported in Isaac Ninan. v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 848), the petition was dismissed by the Additional Munsiff as not maintainable. According to the petitioner, the decision of the Division Bench, referred to above, at best rendered invalid S.5 of the Act only as applied to that case and that S.5 is not rendered invalid as applied to other litigants who apply for determination of fair rent and that the said judgment had no occasion to consider the question of fairness as to the deductability from fair rent of repair charges incurred by the tenant in conjunction with the opportunity for the landlord for recovering cost of construction and profits under the aforesaid standard for determining fair rent.

3. The Division Bench in Isaac Ninan's case (supra) was considering the question of general public importance of Ss.5, 6 and 8 of the Act. The Bench, after considering various aspects of the matter and pros and cons of the relevant Section and also after referring to the rulings of the Supreme Court and the observations made therein, came to the conclusion that the impugned provisions do not stand the test of reasonableness and accordingly Ss.5, 6 and 8 of the Act relating to fair rent were declared as ultra vires the Constitution of India and are void. While considering the points raised by the petitioner/party-in-person this Bench held that once the law is declared as unconstitutional, no Court has jurisdiction to decide the case once again on the basis of the Sections which were struck down as ultra vires of the Constitution of India and are void.

4. This judgment was further explained in the recent decision of a Division Bench comprising of P.A. Mohammed and M.R. Hariharan Nair, JJ. reported in Jain Enterprises v. Aegee Enterprises (2000 (1) KLT 20). It is to be noticed that the judgment reported in 1995 (2) KLT 848 (supra) was rendered on 2.11.1995. The Government of Kerala have not taken any steps to rectify the defects and anomalies pointed out by the Division Bench. State of Kerala, which was also a party to the above judgment, has also not filed any appeal against the judgment before the Supreme Court of India and has allowed the judgment to be final and conclusive in so far as the provisions relating to fair rent i.e., Ss.5, 6 and 8 of the Act.

5. Thus it is seen that the decision rendered by the Division Bench comprising of K.T. Thomas, ag. C.J. and K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. in 1995 (2) KLT 848 was followed by another Division Bench comprising of P.A. Mohammed and M.R. Hariharan Nair, JJ. reported in 2000 (1) KLT 20 (supra). Our Bench in the Writ Petition in respect of which the leave for Certificate of Fitness to appeal is sought for by the petitioner has referred to and followed those decisions, we did not differ from the views held by the earlier Division Benches, in which event the only course was to follow those decisions and that has been done by our Bench. When the application seeking issuance of Certificate of Appeal to the Supreme Court from our judgment dated 9.2.99 was made, learned Government Pleader submitted that the Certificate cannot be granted to the petitioner since the petitioner has not made any oral application before the Division Bench, immedi