The court discussed the principle of waiver of territorial jurisdiction under S.21 CPC and its application to Rent Control cases. It held that a defect of territorial jurisdiction cannot go to the root of the matter or affect the competency of the court which has been invested with powers under the Rent Control Act.

1. The tenant of a building, who has been ordered to vacate by the Rent Controller, Appellate Authority and the Revisional Court has come up with this revision petition under S.115 CPC. The landlord after retiring from service wanted to settle down at Calicut and for that purpose wanted the tenant to vacate from the building On his refusal the landlord applied for eviction. An application was filed before the Munsiff, Kozhikode I, who was invested with the powers of a Rent Control Court under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenant disputed the claim of bona fide need set up by the applicant and also disputed the title of the applicant to apply for eviction. The Rent Control Court found that the tenant's dispute of the applicant's title for eviction is not bona fide. It also found that the need of the applicant is bona fide. Consequently an order for eviction was passed. On appeal to the Appellate Authority, besides repeating his contentions that he took before the Rent Controller an additional ground was taken to the effect that the Munsiff, Kozhikode I, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application because the area where the building is situate falls within the jurisdiction of Munsiff, Kozhikode II, and the latter has been invested with the powers of a Rent Control Court to dispose of applications under the Act in respect of buildings in that area. The Appellate Authority permitted him to raise that additional ground, but found that he is not entitled to question the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff, Kozhikode I) on the principle of S.21 CPC. On the merits also the dispute regarding the title was found to be not bona fide and the need of the applicant was found to be genuine. The petitioner did not keep quiet. He moved the District Court challenging the orders passed by the Subordinate Tribunals. The District Court also found that there is no bona fides in the petitioner disputing the title or the applicant to apply under the Act. The applicant was found to be the karnavan of the puthravakasam tarwad entitled to resume the management of the tarwad on his retirement from service and returning to Calicut. Further the petitioner entered into the rental arrangement with the applicant's sister during his absence and his sister has only acted on his behalf. Consequently there is no scope for any dispute regarding the title of the applicant. The applicant was found to be in genuine need of the building for his residence. On the plea of nullity of the order passed by the Munsiff Kozhikode I, also the District Judge concurred with the Appellate Authority's view that the petitioner is not entitled to raise this question on the principle of S 21 CPC. It is after all these that the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

2. All the Subordinate Tribunals are right in coming to the conclusion that there is no bona fides in the petitioner disputing the title of the applicant-respondent. The respondent was employed in Bangalore as Secretary, Coffee Board. He was the eldest male member of his puthravakasam tavazhi and during his absence from Calicut the management of the properties was being attended to by his sister and in, the course of such management she had let out the building to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that on her death her heirs alone are entitled to claim eviction is unsustainable in view of the character of the property and the nature of the management that the respondent's sister had over the property. On the petitioner coming back after retirement he is entitled to resume the management and it is in that capacity he asked for eviction of the petitioner. It is not disputed that the respondent has no building of his own in Calicut for his residence. That being so his claim for getting back the building from the petitioner is bona fide. There is no error of jurisdiction in the conclusions arrived at by the Subordinate Tribunals for

in