JETHA BAI & SONS, JEW TOWN, COCHIN, ETC. ETC. versus SUNDERDAS RATHENAI, ETC. ETC .

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 871 · Decided: 04-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' _,, 
JETHA BAI & SONS, JEW TOWN, COCHIN, ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
. ' 
SUNDERDAS RATHENAI, ETC. ETC . 
FEBRUARY 4, 1988 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, S. NATARAJAN AND 
B 
~ 
S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.] 
Whether against an order of a District Court in Revision under 
section 20 of the Kera/a Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act 2 of 1965, 
a further Revision lies to the High Court under section 115 of the Code 
of Civil Procedure-Determination of-Landlord-Tenant dispute-In c 
r 
the matter of. 
These appeals together with a petition for special leave raised a 
common question of law-whether against an order of a District Court 
in revision under section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent) 
Control Act 2 of 1965, a further revision would lie to' the High Court 
D 
. 
~ 
under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the question 
was not res integra in view of the decision of this Court in Aundal 
Ammal v. Sadasivan Pillai, [1987] 1 S.C.C. 133-A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 203, 
the matters were listed for consideration, by a Bench of three Judges, of 
the very same question in order to see whether there was any conflict 
.y 
between the views taken in Aundal Ammal's case above-said and a later 
E 
decision of this Court in Shyamaraju Hegde v. G. Venkatesha Bhatt & 
Ors., [1987] 3 J.T. 663, and whether the view taken in the earlier case 
required reconsideration. Aundal Ammal's case arose under the Kerala 
Act afore-mentioned, and the Shyamaraju Hegde's case was under the 
• 
karnataka Rent Control Act, and there were essential differences bet· 
ween the two Acts. 
F 
' 
"" 
The scope and effect of section 20(1) read with section 18(5) of tbe 
. Kerala Act came to be examined by a full Bench of the Kerala High 
Court in Vareed v. Mary, A.I.R. 1969 Kerala 103, which held that a 
decision of a District Court under section 20 of the Kerala Act was 
, ' 
undoubtedly amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court G 
under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The question decided 
.\ 
by the full Bench of the Kerala High Court as above-mentioned, came 
to be considered by this Court (a Bench of two Hon. Judges) in Aundal 
Ammal's case (supra), and the Court held that the ratio laid down by 
the Kerala High Court in Vareed's case (supra) could not be approved 
because the High Court had not properly construed the sections 18(5) 
H 
871 
A 
B 
872 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11988] 2 S.C.R. 
and 20 of the Kerala Act, and was in error. 
So far as the Karnataka Act was concerned, this Court held in 
Shyamaraju Hegde's case (supra) that an order of a District Judge 
under section 50(2), though it conferred finality under the Act, was 
nevertheless open to challenge before the High Court by revision umler 
section 115 C.P.C. by the aggrieved party. 
What fell for consideration in the present cases was whether there ~
was any conflict between the decisions in Aundal Ammal's case (snpra) 
and Shyamaraju Hegde's case (supra) and whether the ratio in the 
former case required reconsideration. 
c 
Disposing of the Appeals and the Petition for Special Leave, the 
Court, 
HELD: Per Sabyasachi Mukharji & S. Natarajan, JJ. 
D 
After examining the differences between the two Acts in detail, 
the Court conclnded that there was really no conflict between the two 
decisions of this Conrt in Aundal Ammal's case (supra) and 
Shyamaraju Hegde's case (snpra), because the provisions in the two 
Acts were materially different. As to the question whether a fresh think· 
ing was called for on the scope of section 20 read with section 18(5) of 
E the Kerala Act, the Court did not find any grounds for reconsidering 
the view taken in the Aundal Ammal's case; on the contrary, the 
renewed discussion by the Court of the matter called for a reiteration of 
the view expressed in Aundal Ammal's case. l889C·Dl 
The Court was unable to countenance in the circumstances of the 
F case, the argument advanced that since the decision of the Kerala High 
Court in Vareed v. Mary aforementioned had been a good law for a 
number of years in the Kerala State and since the High Court had been 
entertaining revision petitions under section t15 C.P.C. against the 
revisional orders of the District Courts under sections 20( 1) of the 
Kerala Act, the decision should have been allowed to stand even though 
G the reasoning therein was not commendable for acceptance by this 
Court, and the reason therefore, the Court observed, could be set out 
by referring to certain English de

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.