AUNDAL AMMAL versus SADASIVAN PILLAI

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 485 · Decided: 09-12-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

·~· 
. _}-
AUNDAL AMMAL 
A 
v. 
SADASIV AN PILLAI 
DECEMBER 9, 1986 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act, 1965, Section 18(5) & 
20-Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in revisi01; under Section 115 
C.P.C.-Whether ousted. 
Cjvil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 115-High Court'sjurisdiction to C 
interfere in revision with an order under the Kera/a Buildings (Lease & Rent) 
Control Act. 1965. 
Words and Phrases-'Shall be final'-Shall not be liable to be called in 
question in any Court of fuw'-Meaning of 
The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Coiro!) 'Act, 1965, by s. 13(3) 
provides that a landlord's petition for eviction of his tenant from a premises on 
the ground of bona fide personal need, has to be disposed of by the Rent 
Control Court. Section 18(l)(h) makes provision ofan appeal to the Appellate 
Authority against the order of the Rent Control Court. Sub-s.(5) of section 18, 
stipulates that the decision of the appellate authority and subject to such 
decision, an order of the Rent Controller 'shall be final' and 'shall not be liable 
to be called in question in any court of law', except as provided in section 20. 
By section 20, a revision is provided where the appellate authority is 
Subordinate Judge to the District Judge and in other·cases, that is to say, 
where the appellate authority is District Judge, to the High Court. 
· 
D 
E 
F 
· The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the 
appellant's husband-tenant on the ground of bona fide personal need. The 
Rent Controller passed an order dismissing the petition. The order was 
confirmed in appeal filed by the respondent before lite Appellate Authority. 
Thereafter, the respondent preferred a revision petition before the District G 
Judge. That petition having been dismissed, he moved the High Court under s. 
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During the pendency of the second 
revision, the appellant's husband died and she was brought on record as the 
legal representative. The High Court set aside all the orders of the courts below 
and ordered eviction of the appellant. 
485 
H 
A 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] I S.C.R. 
In appeal to .this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellant-
tenant that the High Court had exceef..ed its jurisdiction in setting aside the 
judgments and orders of the courts below, since no revision lies to the High 
Court against the order of the District Judge in view of s. 18(5) read with s.20 
of the Act which has completely ousted the High Court's jurisdiction to 
B interfere u/s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
c 
D 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: (1) The High Court had"" jurisdiction to interfere in the matter 
u/s. 115 of C.P .C. Therefore, the judgment and orderof the High Court are set 
aside. [496 B,G] 
2(i) The am bits of revisional powe;"S are well-settled and need not be re-
stated. It is inconceivable to have two :•evisions. The scheme of the Kerala 
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Ad, 1965 does not warrant such a 
conclusion. [492 DJ 
2(ii) Sub-s. (5) ofs. 18 of the Act says that subject to the decision of the 
appellate authority, the decision of the R1•.nt Controller shall be final and could 
only be questioned fo the manner provided in section 20 and in no other 
manner. The expression 'shall be final' in the Act mean• what it says. The 
intention of the legislature in enacting the said Act is clear and manifest from s. 
E 18(5) and the scheme of the Act, that is to say, to regulate the leasing of 
buildings and to control the rent of such buildings and to provide a tier of 
courts by themselves for eviction of the rented premises. This is writ large in 
the different provisions of the Act. [ 492 G] 
2(iii) When section 18(5) of the Act specifically states that "shall not be 
F 
liable to be called in question in any Court of law" except in the manner 
provided under section 20, it cannot be said that the High Court which is a 
court oflaw and which is a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure under 
section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure •:Ould revise again an order on again 
after revision under section 20 of the Act. That would mean there would be a 
trial by four courts, that would be repugnant to the scheme manifest in the 
G different sections of· the Act in question. Public policy or public interest 
demands curtailment of law's delay and justice demands finality within quick 
disposal of case. Th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.