Cherukada Kunhikelu vs Abdul Samad

A question of importance on the procedural aspect has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge of this Court. It pertains to the revision u/s 20 of the Rent Control Act. It has assumed some importance in the light of the notifications under the Rent Control Act on the jurisdiction of the various authorities, in recent times. The short question for consideration is whether a Single Judge of this Court can deal with and dispose of a revision filed u/s 20 of the Act. That depends upon the interpretation to be placed on Sec. 3 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. The powers of the Single Judge are delineated in that Section It is understandable that having regard to the circumstances as it prevailed in the year 1958, the enumeration of the revisions, which had to be dealt with by a Single Judge, was confined to revision under Sec. 115 of the C.P.C. and Sec. 22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957. The Rent Control Act, even in its original form, had been brought into force only in the year 1959. The revisions under other enactments which had great sway and sweep over the fortunes of people and their lives, such as the Land Reforms Act, also came in only subsequently. They generated their own problems. One such arose in the context of the Land Reforms Act. The competence of a Single Judge to deal with the revision arising under Sec. 103 of the Land Reforms Act, had to be considered, soon after the effective implementation of the enactment. A Division Bench of this Court had dealt with the problem in Ouseph Chacko v. Saraswathi Antherjanam, 1966 KLT 1060 The provisions of the High Court Act were analysed. The provision under which a revision was filed under Sec. 103 of the Land Reforms Act was adverted to. The significance of Sec. 3 (4) of the High Court Act, which dealt with only revisions under Sec. 115 C.P.C. and Sec. 22 of the Kerala Small Cause Courts Act, 1957 was considered by this Court. The ultimate conclusion was that only a Division Bench was competent to deal with and dispose of such revisions.

The Legislature accepted the correctness of the view, as is reflected by the further exercise made by it, when the Land Reforms Act was amended, and a Single Judge was empowered to deal with the revisions hereunder.

On a parity of reasoning, and the plain construction of the statute itself, we have no doubt that a revision under Sec. 20 of the Rent Control Act also has to be dealt with and disposed of only by the Division Bench of the High Court.

We accordingly answer the reference by holding that a Single Judge is not competent to deal with revisions under Sec. 20 of the Rent Control Act. It is a matter for the Legislature to provide a remedial situation, if felt necessary. Rent control revisions, hitherto have been dealt with by a Single Judge of the Court, though circumstances were slightly different. There is no reason why revisions of the type, and in respect of the problems covered by the Rent Control Legislation, could not be dealt with and disposed of by a Single Judge. If felt necessary by the Legislature, the result could be achieved either by amending the provisions of the Rent Control Legislation or by modification of Sec. 3 (4) of the High Court Act itself. Possibly, the latter would be more desirable. It is, however, for the Legislature to bestow its thoughts upon the problem and to arrive at its own conclusion. One of the counsel suggested that the revision under the Universities Act is even now being dealt with by a Bench of this Court. That legislation has its unique features. The University and its problems may stand on a different footing than the issues arising in a Rent Control Legislation. As we indicated earlier, it is for the Legislature to have the final say. The reference is answered accordingly.