IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP (RC).No. 1074 of 2010(O) --------------------------- RCRP.1/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.V.JOSEPH, S/O.VARGHESE, DEEPTHI PAPER INDUSTRIES, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, CHANGANASSERY, RESIDING AT AAPPACHERIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JOSE CHERIAN, S/O.LATE CHERIAN, NERIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THURUTHY.P.O., CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN-686 535. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No.1074 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Ext.P5 order passed by the “Rent Control Appellate Authority”, Kottayam in I.A. No.1252/2010 in RCRP No.1/2009 is under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the tenant who is the petitioner in RCRP No.1/2009. 2. On this original petition being moved for admission, this court went through the papers and it appeared to us that the RCRP itself was directed against an order passed by the Rent Control Court, Changanassery. For verification, we called for a report from learned appellate authority and the appellate authority has now reported to this court that the order, which is under challenge in RCRP No.1/2009, is the order in I.A. No.705/2008 in RC(OP) No.10/2004 of the Rent Control Court, Changanassery, an order passed by that court under Section 11 .2. (2)(c) on the original side. We fail to see how the District Judge Kottayam could have entertained the RCRP which is filed specifically invoking Section 14 of the Act 2 of 1965. Section 14 confers revisional powers not on the rent control appellate authority, but on the court to which appeals ordinarily lie against the decisions of the Munsiff, who is executing eviction orders under the Rent Control Act. This means that the District Court, Kottayam will have a revisional jurisdiction only on orders passed by the Munsiff of Changanachery in execution of the eviction orders passed under the provisions of the Rent Control Act by the Rent Control Court. As reported by the learned Principal District Judge, who is also the rent control appellate authority, Kottayam, RCRP No.1/2009 was directed against an order under Section 11 (2)(c) passed by the Rent Control Court, Changanachery and not by Munsiff Court, Changanachery. The RCRP filed under Section 14 was clearly not maintainable. According to us, the remedy available to the revision petitioner even if he had a legitimate grievance about the order of the rent control court was different. .3. However, we do not propose to say anything finally in these proceedings in the absence of the respondent landlord. We set aside Ext.P5 even without notice to the respondent and dispose of this original petition directing the District Court, Kottayam (the Rent Control Appellate Authority) to hear both sides immediately on the issue of maintainability of RCOP No.1/2009 and take a decision. Needful in compliance with the above direction will be done by the learned District Judge, who is also the Rent Control Appellate Authority, at the earliest and at any rate within five days of receiving a copy of this judgment, which will be produced before that court by the petitioner as soon as he obtains the same. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE dpk