The Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction over areas transitioned to a Municipality without updated notifications under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal, J.

The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.10.2024 of the Rent Controller rejecting the application bearing No.11 of 2024 filed by the petitioner-tenant for dismissing the RCP No.18 of 2022 and connected RCP No.60 and 81 of 2022 for want of jurisdiction.

2. Respondent-landlord had filed three rent petitions on various grounds. At this stage, regarding non availment of the remedy of revision against the common order in rent control petition Nos. 60 and 81 of 2022, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petition may be treated against all the pending RCPs. We do not accept this argument for the reason that even if the order is common in three (3) revision petition required to be filed as similar applications have been considered in the other rent petitions. Faced with the situation counsel for the petitioner seeks the indulgence of this Court for treating the decision of the application in RCP No.18 of 2022 with a liberty to file separate revision petitions. Ordered accordingly.

3. Respondent-landlord instituted the rent petition bearing No.18 of 2022 against the petitioner for seeking eviction on the various grounds. On appearance, the petitioner-tenant submitted an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller on the ground that the area where the scheduled building is situated at earlier point of time was falling within the jurisdiction of Chavassery Panchayath which was covered under the provisions of Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 owing to the notification dated 30.6.1970.

4. In the year 2015 ie., with effect from 1.11.2015, a new Municipality called Iritty Municipality was formed and the area falling with the Chavassery Panchayath was included thereafter, no fresh notification much less any saving clause in the Act protecting the applicability of the previous notification viz-a-viz the Iritty Municipal Corporation. In support of the contentions relied upon the judgment of this Court in Biyyathu v. Abdurahimankutty ( 1995 KHC 95 ) and Karam Veettil Parukutty Amma v. Muhammedkutty [ 2013 (1) KHC 56 ].

5. On the other learned Senior counsel for the respondent countered the aforementioned argument on the ground that this is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be adjudicated in the manner and mode and at the best, Rent Controller ought to have framed the issue of maintainability as preliminary issue and decided by giving one-one effective opportunity of hearing to the parties in support of their respective stands. Even otherwise as per the judgments noted by the learned Rent Controller, no case is made out warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India owing to the fact that previous notification caused in 1970 would have an applicability to the same area which has now merged into Irritty municipal area.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Section 1(3) of the 1965 Act reads as under:

1( 3) It applies to the areas mentioned in the Schedule and the Government may be notification in the Gazette, apply all or any of the provisions of this Act to any other area in the State with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification, and may, by like notification, cancel or modify such notification or withdraw the application of all or any of the provisions of this Act from any area mentioned in the Schedule:Provided that no such notification shall be issued unless it is supported by a resolution passed by the local authority or authorities if any, of the areas affected by the notification.

7. It clearly says that the Act would be applicable to the area mentioned in the schedule and the Government may by notification in the Gazette, apply all or any of the provisions of this Act to any other area in the State with effect from the date as may be specified or