Alleppey Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs J. Balakrishnan and K.J. Vijayakumar

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.—Under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the landlord, the Alleppey Urban Co- operative Bank Limited, is Ext.P7 order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alleppey in RCRP No. 1/2007, which was a revision u/s 14 of Act 2 of 1965 directed against Ext.P6 order of the Munsiff Court, Alleppey dismissing the E.P. filed by the petitioner on the view that the order of eviction was passed by the Rent Control Court without jurisdiction and hence a nullity and unexecutable. It will be noticed that the order of eviction was passed in favour of the petitioner bank by the Rent Control Court, Alappuzha u/s 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act on the basis of a detailed enquiry conducted by that Court. That order of eviction was confirmed by the appellate authority and also by this Court in Section 20 revision. In fact, the respondents, who submitted to the jurisdiction of the Rent control Court, appellate authority and this Court, never raised a contention that the eviction petition was not maintainable. However, when the eviction order was put in execution by the petitioner, the respondents raised a contention that, in view of a notification u/s 25 of Act 2 of 1965, which had been promulgated by the Government way back in 1979 (SRO No. 1295/1979), 21 years prior to the institution of the RCP, the Rent Control Court did not have jurisdiction over the case and hence the order of eviction passed by that court, though confirmed by the appellate Authority and this Court, is without jurisdiction.

In this petition under Article 227, various grounds have been raised challenging Ext.P7 order. Sri. N. Nandakumara Menon, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner bank, submitted that the respondents are guilty of suppression of material facts and in that way played fraud not only on the petitioner bank, but also on the statutory authorities under the Act and upon this Court. The existence of the notification, which was issued way back in 1979, was known to the respondents, who kept it a secret with the specific intention of raising it at the 11th hour. Such a conduct should be deprecated. According to Mr. Menon, the legality, correctness and propriety of the eviction order passed can never be questioned as the same has attained finality at the hands of this Court. The learned senior counsel requested that this Court invokes the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and interferes with Exts.P7 and P6, so that substantial justice is rendered to the petitioner bank which is a public institution.

Mr. Hariharaputhran, learned Counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions of Mr. Nandakumara Menon. According to the learned Counsel, the respondents are not guilty of suppressing any material fact. At any rate, According to him, the suppression is not of fact but only of law. Suppression of law cannot visit a litigant with consequences of the nature as suggested by the senior counsel for the petitioner.

We have considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. Hariharaputhran that the respondents can be guilty only of suppression of law. The question, whether the notification SRO 1295/1979 was in existence and applied to the building owned by the petitioner bank, was a question of fact or at least a mixed question of law and fact. Nevertheless we are unable to accept the request of the learned senior counsel either as we notice that the statutory authorities under the Rent Control Act lacked inherent jurisdiction to pass the order of the eviction. When an order is passed by the court which lacked inherent jurisdiction, the order is a nullity and can be ignored by the Execution Court. In that view of the matter, we are obliged to sustain Ext.P7 and we do so. At the same time, we notice that the building, in question situated on an important commercial area of Alappuzha Municipality is fetching a monthly rent of Rs. 450/ - only. According to us, the above rate is far below the rent of the building which may fetch if the same is let out today. We are, therefore, inclined to refix the rent tentatively with effect from 1st December 2010 at Rs. 1000/ - per month. We make it clear that the above refixation is tentative and if either party is aggrieved, the appropriate court can be moved for redressal.

Mr. Nandakumara Menon, learned senior counsel requested that since the building is a non banking asset, the Reserve Bank of India will not permit the tenancy to continue. The petitioner bank stands at the risk of forfeiting its licence issued by the reserve bank. He referred to Ext.P8 in this regard. The learned Counsel requested that the competent civil court be directed to give top priority to the suit which will in all probability be instituted within a period of two months from today. We feel that request of the learned Counsel is quite reasonable. If a suit for eviction is filed by the revision petitioner within two months from today, the court which comes to be seizin of that suit will give top priority to the suit and ensure that the suit is disposed of at the earliest.