The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the ouster of jurisdiction in light of the notification under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and the exemption of buildings owned by Cooperative Societies from the Act.

The defendant, who raised a question of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit O. S. No. 230 of 1989 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom, is the petitioner in this revision petition. The two original plaintiffs and the two additional plaintiffs impleaded later on are the respondents.

2. The suit was one filed by respondents 1 and 2 for recovery of arrears of rent and possession of the plaint schedule room and lean-to portion occupied by the petitioner. After the filing of the suit Government of Kerala issued a Notification G. O. (MS) No. 43/90/ Housing dated 6-10-1990 which was published in the Kerala Government Gazette No. 42 dated 23-10-1990 making the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short "the Act") applicable to Chempu Panchayat within the jurisdiction of which the plaint schedule building and property are situated. Even before the issue of the above notification, plaint schedule building with land appurtenant thereto seems to have been purchased by the Ksheerolpadaka Society No. K.76(D) Chempu (for short "the Society") as per a sale deed dated 31-1-1990. On the basis of the said purchase on 9-4-1990, the President and Secretary of the Society filed I. A. No. 586 of 1990 under Order XXII, Rule 10, CPC to implead them as additional plaintiffs in the suit. The said petition was allowed. However, no consequential amendments in the pleadings including the relief portion were sought for or made by the additional plaintiffs simultaneously. Later, on 12-10-1992 the additional plaintiffs (respondents 3 and 4) filed an application for amendment of the plaint including the relief portion seeking recovery of possession of the plaint schedule building by the Society. The counsel for the respondents has submitted that the application for amendment of the relief portion has also been allowed during the pendency of the revision petition.

3. While so, the petitioner filed I, A. No. 1289 of 1992 raising the question of jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the light of the notification dated 6-10-1990 and requesting the Court to try the said question as a preliminary issue. It was contended by the petitioner that on the issuance of the notification G.O.(MS) No. 43/90/ Housing dated 6-10-1990 there was an ouster of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the authorities under the Act to entertain proceedings for recovery of buildings coming within the areas to which the Act is made applicable. The said prayer of the petitioner was objected to by the respondents mainly relying upon another notification, S.R.O. No. 1225 of 1979 and issued under S. 25(1) of the Act. The learned Munsiff as per the impugned order upheld the objection raised by the plaintiffs in the suit and dismissed the petition holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the fact that as per notification, S.R.O. No. 1225 of 1979 all buildings owned by the Cooperative Societies in the State are exempted from the provisions in S. 11 of the Act. Aggrieved by the above decision, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there is ouster of jurisdiction in the light of the notification dated 6-10-1990 issued under the Act as contended by the petitioner.

5. Admittedly, at the time when the suit was filed the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the same as the Act was not applicable to the areas included in the Chempu Panchayat. The Act was in fact made applicable to the areas only as per notification dated 6-10-1990 published in the Kerala Government Gazette dated 23-10-1990. Normally the Civil Courts would cease to have jurisdiction to entertain the suit for recovery of the building in question with effect from the date on which the notification was brought into force making the provisions