Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.39 seconds)Section 23 in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Mukri Gopalan vs Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker on 12 July, 1995
Mr.Balakrishna Iyer
placed strong reliance on the judgment of Sri.K.Sreedharan,
J. in Abdul Rehiman v. Hameed Hassan Peruvad & others,
(1995(2) KLT 794) wherein the learned Judge relying on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Gopalan v. Aboobacker,
(1995(2) KLT 205) held that the Rent Control Court is not
acting as persona designata but is acting as a regular court.
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-10-
Mr.Balakrishna Iyer submitted that the enquiry which is
contemplated by rule 15 of Order 32 CPC into the alleged
mental infirmity of a party to the suit was a judicial enquiry
with notice to the allegedly insane person and any order
passed against an allegedly insane person without such an
enquiry will vitiate the order to the extent of making the
same a nullity.
Section 11 in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001
Kasturi Bai And Ors vs Anguri Chaudhary on 5 February, 2003
The learned senior counsel would lastly
rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasturi Bai
and others v. Anguri Chaudhary, (AIR 2003 SC 1773) to
argue that before entering a finding as to whether a party
was incapable of protecting his interest by reason of his
mental infirmity, an enquiry had to be conducted by the trial
court itself.
Cheru Ouseph vs Kunjipathumma on 13 March, 1981
It was fairly conceded by Mr.Balakrishna Iyer
that he was unable to come across any decision either of
the Supreme Court or of this Court or for that matter of any
other High Court wherein it is held that all the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings
before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority.
Section 23 of Act 2 of 1965 is the one provision which
extends certain provisions vested in Courts governed by
Code of Civil Procedure while trying suits to the Rent Control
Court and the Appellate Authority. Order 32 CPC is
conspicuously absent among the powers enumerated in
clauses (a) to (k) of subsection (1) of section 23. A learned
Judge of this Court, Sri.M.P.Menon, J. in Cheru Ouseph v.
Kunjipathumma, (1981 KLT 495) held that in respect of
procedural matters all powers which are not specifically
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-15-
denied by the statute or the statutory rules should be
vouchsafed to a Tribunal like the Rent Control Court so that
the Tribunal can effectively exercise its functions which are
essentially judicial in nature. The statutory rules are the
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1979
framed by the Government by virtue of its powers under
section 31 of the Act. In the statutory rules also, we do not
find any specific provision pertaining to filing of rent control
petitions by or against minors and persons of unsound mind.
It can never be in doubt that it may become necessary to
institute rent control petitions against minors and also
against persons who are of unsound mind at the time of
such institution or comes to be of unsound mind during the
course of the proceedings. What is the course to be
adopted when a rent control petition is instituted by or
against a person who is alleged to be a minor or of unsound
mind is the question which naturally arises. Minors and
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-16-
persons of unsound mind being persons under legal
disability cannot institute rent control petitions by
themselves nor can rent control petitions be instituted
against them in their own names. According to us, in such
situations the provisions of Order 32 to the extent they do
not conflict with any of the provisions in Act 2 of 1965 or the
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules can be
followed. At the same time, the Rent Control Court and the
Appellate Authority should not be unmindful of subrule (8)
of rule 11 which specifically enjoins on them the obligation
to follow the principles of justice, equity and good
conscience in preference to the technicalities of procedural
law.
S. Chattanatha Karayalar vs Vaikuntarama Karayalar And Anr. on 17 February, 1967
160). Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra v.Man
Singh, AIR 1968 SC 954) in support of the argument that
decree passed against a lunatic without the appointment of
a guardian for him as per procedure contemplated under
rules 3 and 15 of Order 32 is a nullity. To argue that an
RCR. N0s. 36 & 89 of 2009
-11-
enquiry as contemplated by rule 15 of Ordr 32 is mandatory
and that such an enquiry can be held even at the appellate
stage Sri.Balakrishna Iyer relied on the judgment of the
Madras High Court in S.Chattanatha Karayalar v.
Vaikuntarama, (AIR 1968 Madras 346).
Section 20 in Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 [Entire Act]
Somnath vs Tipanna Ramchandra Jannu on 20 October, 1972
Mr.Balakrishna Iyer
submitted that once the court is informed or it comes to the
notice of the court that a party before the court is by reason
of unsoundness of mind or otherwise incapable of taking
care of his interest, it is the court's duty to hold necessary
enquiry and appoint guardian or next friend as the case may
be. Mr. Balakrishna Iyer relied also on the judgment of a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Somnath v.
Tipanna, (AIR 1973 Bombay 276).