Point of Law: Section 1(3), Act applies to areas mentioned in Schedule and Government may by notification in Gazette, apply all or any of provisions of this Act to any other area in State with effect from such date as may be specified in notification, and may, by like notification, cancel or modify such notification or withdraw application of all or any of provisions of this Act from any area mentioned in Schedule.

ORDER :

C.S.Sudha, J.

Is exemption granted to buildings under Section 25 of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) a privilege or benefit which the landlord of the said buildings can waive ? Or, is it a provision taking away the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Court (RCC) to entertain an application filed by the landlords of the building(s) exempted by the notification issued under Section 25? Let us examine these questions in the light of the scope and object of the Act and its various provisions.

2. This revision under Section 20(1) of the Act has been filed by the appellant in R.C.A.No.165/2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Vatakara (RCAA), confirming the order dated 25/10/2012 in R.C.P.No.35/2011 on the file of the Rent Control Court (RCC), Nadapuram. The respondent herein is the petitioner-landlord in the R.C.P. and the respondent in the R.C.A. The parties in this revision will be referred to as described in the R.C.P.

3. The petitioner-landlord, a Madrassa, moved the RCC seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The RCC by order dated 25/10/2012 allowed the R.C.P. The respondent-tenant filed R.C.A.No.165/2012 before the RCAA which in turn by judgment dated 30/01/2016 confirmed the order of eviction passed under Section 11(3). Aggrieved, the respondent-tenant has come up in revision. In the revision petition, it is alleged that the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence or the law on the matter and hence the impugned judgment is liable to be reversed.

4. Heard Adv.R.Parthasarathy, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Adv.Aswin Sathyanath, the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The first and the foremost argument advanced on behalf of the respondent-tenant is that the RCC had no jurisdiction to entertain the R.C.P. in the light of the notification issued under Section 25 of the Act by which Madrassas have been exempted from the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the remedy was to move a civil court and not the RCC. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner/landlord relying on the decisions in Lachoo Mal v. Radhye Shyam, AIR 1971 SC 2213, P.S.M.Nazeer alias P.M.Abdul Nazeer v. M.J.Company, 2000(2) Rent Control Reporter 205 and V.Natarajan v. Saliyur Mahajana Sangam, 2004(2) Rent Control Reporter 402 (Madras), that the exemption granted under Section 25 of the Act is a privilege or benefit which can be waived by the landlord concerned. This argument is disputed by the respondent-tenant on whose behalf it is argued that Section 25 is not a privilege granted to the landlord but an exemption granted to certain buildings and as it is not a privilege or benefit granted to the petitioner-landlord, the latter cannot waive it. It is further pointed out that, as per notification No.SRO 769/1996 dated 30/10/1996, the Government in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Act has exempted buildings of all Madrassas from the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Act. As Section 11 is not applicable to Madrassas, the RCC could not have entertained or ordered eviction in favour of the petitioner-landlord under Section 11(3) of the Act.

6. The Rent Control Act is a piece of social legislation and is meant mainly to protect the tenants from frivolous evictions. At the same time, in order to do justice to the landlords and to avoid placing such restrictions on their right to evict the tenant as to destroy their legal right to property, certain statutory provisions have been made by the legislature which have given relief to the landlord. In so far as the social legislation, like the Act is concerned, the law must strike a balance between rival interests and it should try to be just to all. The law ought not to be unjust to one and give a disproportionate benefit or protection to another section of the society. Tenants and landlords are to be given equal treatment. The courts have to adopt a reasonable and bal