Back
High Court of Kerala
Arunachalam Chettiar Lakshmanan, D. Sreedevi, JJ.
Mathew Mathew - Appellant
Versus
Bhaskaran & Ors - Respondent
O.P. No. 25855 of 1999
Decided On : 09-02-2000
Rent Control Act - Interpretation of S.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Summary of Acts and Sections: S.5, S.6, S.8, S.17(2) - The court discussed the constitutional validity of S.5, S.6, and S.8 of the Act, which deal with the determination of fair rent, ban on rent increase, and restrictions on landlords. The court held that these provisions were ultra vires the Constitution of India and void. The judgment emphasized the Act's purpose to regulate building leasing and control rent, protecting tenants from unreasonable eviction and exorbitant rent, while ensuring certain rights for landlords. The court also highlighted the need for reasonableness and fairness in rent control legislation, considering the disparity between the cost of living in 1965 and 1995. The judgment further clarified that once a law is declared unconstitutional, no court has jurisdiction to decide cases based on the invalidated sections.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought clarification on the interpretation of S.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, following a Division Bench decision that declared S.5, S.6, and S.8 of the Act as ultra vires the Constitution of India and void. The petitioner contended that the Rent Control Court could still determine fair rent despite the observations and striking down of the sections.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Original Petition, emphasizing that the Act aimed to regulate building leasing and control rent, protecting tenants from unreasonable eviction and exorbitant rent, while ensuring certain rights for landlords. The court held that the invalidated provisions of S.5, S.6, and S.8 were void and that no court had jurisdiction to decide cases based on these sections.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of S.5 of the Act following the Division Bench decision that declared S.5, S.6, and S.8 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and void. The court also addressed the petitioner's contention that the Rent Control Court could still determine fair rent despite the invalidated sections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the constitutional validity of S.5, S.6, and S.8 of the Act, emphasizing the Act's purpose to regulate building leasing and control rent, protecting tenants from unreasonable eviction and exorbitant rent, while ensuring certain rights for landlords. The court clarified that once a law is declared unconstitutional, no court has jurisdiction to decide cases based on the invalidated sections.
Final Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed, and the court affirmed the invalidity of S.5, S.6, and S.8 of the Act, emphasizing that no court had jurisdiction to decide cases based on these sections.
A.R. Lakshmanan, J.
1. This Original Petition was referred by J. B. Koshy, J. by passing the following reference order:
"Question raised in this Original Petition is regarding clarification of the decision in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala, 1995 (2) KLJ 555, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has struck down S.5 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. Petitioner contends that despite the observations and striking down of the section, Rent Control Court can determine fair rent. Since the matter involves interpretation of the Division Bench decision, I am of the view that this matter should be considered by a Bench of this Court. Hence I adjourn the matter to be placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Since the party in person is appearing, the party submits that this may be posted on 25-10-1999."
2. In the Original Petition the petitioner has impleaded only the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam and not the other parties, who are respondents 1 and 2 before the Rent Control Court. Since their presence is necessary for an effective adjudication of the grounds raised in the Original Petition, we suo-moto impleaded them as respondents 2 and 3 and also the State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary as the 4th respondent.
3. The petitioner filed the Original Petition to declare that the judgment in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala, 1995 (2) KLT 848 : 1995 (2) KLJ 555, does not prevent the Rent Control Court from determining "fair rent" in other cases. A prayer for mandamus to compel the Rent Control Court to exercise its jurisdiction to determine "fair rent" on the application of the petitioner was also prayed for. Along with the Original Petition, the petitioner filed Exhibit P1, which is an application under proviso to S.4(5), S.5 and S.30(1) and 30(2) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and Exhibit P2, the order passed by the Additional Munsiff of Rent Control Court, Ernakulam dated September 14, 1999 dismissing the Rent Control Application in view of the ruling reported in 1995 (2) KLT 848. The said order reads thus:
"This is a petition filed for fixation of fair rent by the petitioner/tenant.
He was heard.
In view of the ruling reported in 1995 (2) KLT 848, the power to fix fair rent is there only with respect to a building re-constructed as per S.11(4)(iv) of the Act. S.5 of the Act is not there in the statute at present in view of the aforesaid ruling.
Sections 4(5) and 30 of the Act quoted in this I.A. are not attracted in this case.
Hence this application is not maintainable.
In the result, this application is dismissed.
Pronounced in open Court on 14-9-1999.
Sd/-
R. Narayanan,
Add. Munsiff, R.C.C.".
3. The petitioner/party in person is an Advocate. It is his case that the decision of the Division Bench, comprising of K.T. Thomas, Ag. C.J. (as he then was) and K. S. Radhakrishnan, J., reported 1995 (2) KLT 848 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". According to him, the Rent Control Court refused to assume jurisdiction to proceed to determine "fair rent" on the application of the petitioner on the mistaken view as to the effect of the decision in 1995 (2) KLT 848; the mistaken view is that S.5 of the Act is completely struck down and rendered totally inoperative by the said decision and that the Rent Control Court is devoid of power to fix "fair rent" under S.5 of the Act and therefore that the application for determining "fair rent" is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the Rent Control Court adhered to this view even in the face of the argument that the above decision 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 seeking determination of "fair rent". It is also sub
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
