The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Court has the power to review its earlier view and restore a provision to the statute book if it deems it necessary, especially in the absence of a forum for resolution of disputes regarding fair rent.

ORDER :

A M SHAFFIAUE, J.

1. The aforesaid cases have been referred to a Larger Bench on account of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court regarding the correctness of the decision in Edger Ferus v. Abraham Ittycheria (2004 (1) KLT 767 reviewing its judgment in Issac Ninan v. State of Kerala 1995 (2) KLT 848 to a limited extent, by which section 5(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (hereinafter referred as the Act) has been restored back to the statute book.

2. Both the Rent Control Revisions arise out of the same order passed by the Rent Control Court, Chittur in RCP Mo.14/2010 and the appellate order in RCA No.20/2012. RCP No.14/2010 was filed by the landlord for fixation of rent u/s 5(1) of the Act seeking to enhance the rent from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 8,000/-. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition in part and enhanced the rent at Rs. 2,500/- from the date of filing petition. The appeals were filed by tenant as well as the landlord. However, the appellate authority did not interfere with against which both With the rent fixed by the Rent Control Court these revisions are preferred.

3. The tenant in its revision inter alia contended that S.5(1) of the Act cannot be invoked in so far as the judgment in Eager Ferus (supra) does not lay down the correct law and requires reconsideration.

4. While considering the revisions, a Division Bench of this Court observed that though Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act, have been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution of India and void in Issac Ninan (supra), in a review petition filed after 9 years, in Edger Ferus (supra), this Court had restored S.5(1) to the statute. In Edger Ferus (supra), two civil revision petitions and the review petition in Isaac Ninan (supra) were decided as per a common judgment. The civil revision petitions which were the subject matter in Edger Ferus (supra) alone came to be challenged before the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal Nos.7088 and 7089/2004 and those were dismissed by order dated 4/11/2009 (Edger Ferus v. Abraharm itttycheria 2009 (4) KLT 673 (SC). Another Division Bench in Kadar Pillai v. Govern Travels 2014 (4) KLT 593 again passed an order restoring S.5(5) to the statute book, it is observed that the Division Bench could not have exercised the power of review after 9 years of the provision of law being declared unconstitutional and void and could not have restored the said provision to the statute book. Therefore, it was felt that an authoritative pronouncement of the question as to whether any of the provisions contained in Sections 5, 6 and 8 which had been declared to be ultra vires, unconstitutional and void in Issac Ninan (supra) can be brought back to the statute book by a Court exercising power of review or by a Bench of co-ordinate strength.

5. We heard the learned counsel Sri.P.B.Krishnan appearing for the tenant and Sri.Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel appearing for the landlord.

6. In Issac Ninan (supra), this Court held that the combined operations of Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act is a gross invasion on the right of a landlord to carry on business. Paragraphs 26 to 31 are relevant which read as under: -

"26. The only beneficiary in the above circumstances is the building tenant He had no investment in the building He has no liability to bear any expenses for maintenance and repairs.

27. Apart from the fact that the impunged provisions are unjust and unreasonable as they offend Article 14 of the Constitution, we may say that those provisions would offence Article 19(1)(g) also.

28. Legislature cannot deprive a citizen of his fundamental right to carry on any business. The word business in Article 19(1)(g) has received a very pragmatic and realistic construction by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sodan Sing v. New Delhi Municipal Committee AIR 1989 SC 1988. The following observations are apposite in this context:

"Business is a very wide term and would include anything which occupies