IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRP.No. 1084 of 2002(B) ----------------------- RCA.76/1998 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.110/1996 of I ADDL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ MRS. CELINE JOSEPH, W/O.LATE JOSEPH ANJIPARAMBIL, RESIDING AT CHELLATH, KATHRUKADAVU DESOM, ELAMKULLAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER ATTORNY, A.J.MATHEW @ MATHAPPAN, BUSINESS AGED 45, R/AT AT CHELLATH HOUSE, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------- MRS. ELIZABATH XAVIER, WIFE OF XAVIER CHIRAKKAPARAMBIL, BUSINESS, AGED 65, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATHRUKADAVU DESOM, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KATHRUKADAVU, DOING BUSINESS IN BUILDING NO.36/2553, KATHRUKADAVU MARKET, KATHRUKADAVU, KALOOR, KOCHI – 17. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SRI.TITUS MANI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P.No.1084 of 2002 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The landlord is in revision against the judgment of the rent control appellate authority interfering with an order of the rent control court declining to refer the question of the tenant's eligibility for protection of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The rent control court obviously following the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Sundaran v. Mohammed Koya (1995 (2) KLT 115), took the view that the issue does not seriously arise on the materials placed on record and declined to refer the issue to the Land Tribunal. The appellate authority, however, under its judgment examined the pleadings and found that the issue certainly arises as to whether the tenant is entitled for the protection of Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act and on that basis passed the judgment directing reference of the issue to the Land Tribunal. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Sreelal N.Warriyer, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. C.R.P.No.1084/2002 2 Titus Mani, learned counsel for the respondent. Our attention was drawn by Sri.Sreelal N.Warriyer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Govinda Panicker v. Sreedhara Warrier (2000 (2) KLT 43). It has been very clearly laid down in Govinda Panicker's case that the tenancy protected under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is not a tenancy coming within the ambit of Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and that there is no exclusion of jurisdiction of the civil court either expressly or by implication in considering and deciding the question arising out of a claim by a person that he is a lessee entitled to the protection of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. We are in complete agreement with the view expressed by a Division Bench in Govinda Panicker' case. According to us, the respondent tenant need not have any legitimate grievance in the issue being decided by the rent control court itself. 3. Accordingly, allowing the revision petition, we set aside the judgment of the rent control appellate authority as well as that of the rent control court and direct the rent control court to enquire into the question whether the respondent tenant is C.R.P.No.1084/2002 3 entitled to the protection of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act along with the the other points which may arise in the rent control petition. In the above circumstances, the parties are directed to suffer their costs. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE dpk C.R.P.No.1084/2002 4 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P.No.1084 of 2002 ------------------------ O R D E R 2ND JUNE 2009