IMPORTANT POINTS
• Nyayadhikari has no jurisdiction to try and dispose of rent control petitions, wrongly remanded the case to the Gram Nyayalaya with a direction to the Nyayadhikari to return the rent control petition for presenting before proper Rent Control Court. We find use of the expression “remand” is not legally correct. As stated earlier, once it is found that the Nyayadhikari has no subject matter jurisdiction to deal with rent control petitions, the decision rendered by him thereon becomes a nullity and non-est. Therefore, no appeal could be laid to the Rent Control Appellate Authority against such a decision. Unchallengably, the power to remand a case to a lower court or a judicial tribunal is a facet of the appellate power.

A.HARIPRASAD, J

Prominent legal questions arising in the above mentioned original petitions relate to the jurisdiction of a “Nyayadhikari”, as defined in Section 2(e) and appointed under Section 5 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 ( in short 'Act of 2008), to try and dispose of cases filed under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the B.R.C Act'), which the Nyadhikari received by transfer under orders of a District Judge, by invoking the power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'C.P.C').

2. Brief narration of facts may be necessary to appreciate the legal issues coming up for decision :

O.P (R.C) No.99 of 2019 is arising out of R.C.P No.54 of 2015 originally filed before the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram under Section 11(3) of the B.R.C Act. The rent control petition was transferred under orders of the District Judge to the Gram Nyayalaya, Kunnummel Block, Kuttyadi and it was renumbered as R.C.P No.6 of 2016 there. Trial of the case was conducted before the Gram Nyayalaya by parties adducing evidence. After hearing the parties, the Gram Nyayalaya allowed the eviction petition by order dated 26-07-2017. The respondent/tenant filed R.C.A No.126 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara. The appellate authority set aside the order of Gram Nyayalaya relying on a decision in Manager, Sai Service Station Ltd. & Another v. Dileep Ganesh (2018 (1) KLJ 63) rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, in which it is held that a Gram Nyayalaya is not a Rent Control Court and any order passed by Gram Nyayalaya under the B.R.C Act is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, after setting aside the order of eviction passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, decided to remand the case to the Gram Nyayalaya with a direction to the Nyayadhikari to return the rent control petition for representation before the Rent Control Court having jurisdiction.

3. The issue raised in O.P.(R.C) No.100 of 2019 is that the petitioners filed R.C.P No.53 of 2015 before the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram urging a ground under Section 11(3) of the B.R.C Act, seeking eviction of the respondent. The eviction petition was transferred to Gram Nyayalaya and it was renumbered as RCP No.5 of 2016. After concluding the trial, an order of eviction was passed by the Gram Nyayalaya. Notwithstanding the order of eviction, the petitioners are not in a position to execute the order of Gram Nyayalaya against the respondent in view of the decision in Manager, Sai Service Station. Hence the petitioners approached this Court.

4. O.P(R.C) No.101 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners in R.C.P No.56 of 2015, who sought eviction of the respondent under Section 11(3) of the B.R.C Act before the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram. This case was also transferred under orders of District Judge to Gram Nyayalaya. Trial of the case was conducted before the Gram Nyayalaya and after hearing both sides, the eviction petition was allowed. The respondent filed R.C.A No.127 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In that matter, the petitioners filed an application for directing the tenants to deposit arrears of rent specified under Section 12 of the B.R.C Act. Even though the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed an order on that application under Section 12(3) of the B.R.C Act stopping all proceedings and directing the tenant/respondent to surrender the petition schedule building to the landlord, the petitioners/landlords now find that the order is inexecutable in view of the decision in Manager, Sai Service Station. Hence, they seek appropriate directions in this matter.

5. O.P(R.C) No.102 of 2019 arises out of R.C.P No.55 of 2015 filed by the petitioners before the Rent Control Court, Nadapuram, under Section 11(3) of the B.R.C Act against the respondent. This case was also transferred to Gram Nyayalaya. Here also, a trial was held by Gram Nyayalaya resulting in an order of eviction. But