SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(Ker) 280

Judges : T.C.RAGHAVAN
KUNJALI HASSAN KURUP - Appellant
Versus
ABDUL SATHR SAIT - Respondent
Case No : C. R. P. No. 488 of 1961
Decided On : 11/27/1962
Advocates Appeared :
T. K. Kurien; For Petitioner N. Parameswaran Moothathu; For Respondent

The Rent Control Court is only a persona designata and should not have tried the small cause suit and the petition for eviction jointly.

Headnote:

Rent Control Court - Jurisdiction - The Rent Control Court is only a persona designata and should not have tried the small cause suit and the petition for eviction jointly.

Fact of the Case:

The Munsiff of Krishnapuram, acting as the Rent Control Court, tried a small cause suit for arrears of rent and a petition for eviction jointly, decreed the arrears of rent, and ordered eviction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Rent Control Court and the Munsiff are exercising two different jurisdictions and should not have tried the cases jointly. The decree passed by the Munsiff was set aside, and the suit was remanded for fresh disposal.

Issues: The issue was whether the Rent Control Court, acting as the Munsiff, could try a small cause suit and a petition for eviction jointly.

Ratio Decidendi: The Rent Control Court is only a persona designata and should not have tried the small cause suit and the petition for eviction jointly.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, the decree passed by the Munsiff was set aside, and the suit was remanded for fresh disposal.

Judgment :-

1. The Munsiff of Krishnapuram, who is also the Rent Control Court under S.3 of Act XVI of 1959, has tried a small cause suit for arrears of rent and a petition for eviction under the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act jointly. He has decreed the arrears of rent and has also ordered eviction. Against the decree in the small cause suit this Civil Revision Petition has been filed; and I am told that a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed before the Subordinate Judge of Mavelikara against the order of eviction.

2. Under S.3 (1) of Act XVI of 1959 the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint a person who is or is qualified to be appointed, a Munsiff to be the Rent Control Court. This provision reveals that the Rent Control Court is only a persona designata. In this case it so happened that the person appointed as Rent Control Court happened to be the Munsiff as well. Nevertheless, the two courts, viz., the court of the Munsiff and the Rent Control Court, are exercising two different jurisdictions and the learned Munsiff should not have tried the small cause suit and the petition for eviction jointly.

3. On that short ground I allow the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the decree passed by the learned Munsiff and remand the suit for fresh disposal in the light of this judgment. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their respective costs.

Allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top