AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (2) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the ground that the building needs reconstruction. The petitions were allowed by the Rent Controller on 9-2-1984. The said judgments were reversed by the first Appellate Authority and upheld by the District court, disallowing eviction. By Ext. P1 judgment in CRP. Nos. 1365/84 and. 2500 of 1985 dated 5-3-1986, this Court allowed eviction. The petitioners filed SLP (Civil) Nos. 6727 and 6608 of 1986 before the Supreme Court of India. In the meanwhile, execution proceedings were initiated by way of EP. Nos. 68 and 69 of 1986, evidenced by Exts. P2 and P3. The Supreme Court dismissed the Special leave Petitions. The orders were substantially similar in the two cases. It was held that if there is existing vacant shops which can be given to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nullity. The first respondent-Landlord has failed to adhere to the submissions made before the Supreme Court. He should have allotted alternate rooms to the petitioners which he had. Exts. P5 and P7 orders are illegal and improper. The order of eviction was passed by this Court in CRP. Nos. 1365 of 1984 and 2500 of 1985 (Ext. P1) on 5-3-1986, at the instance of the first respondent. This was long before the Supreme Court rendered the decision in Aundal Ammal's case (1987 (1) KLT 53 ). In the said decision, the supreme Court, in Para. 19 to 22 of the judgment, held that in proceedings under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, a second revision under s. 115 CPC. does not lie to the High Court from a revisional order passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne filed under Art. 227 of the Consti-tuion, the plea of want of jurisdiction cannot be taken up for the first time in this proceeding (Trivandrum Co-operative District Wholesale Society v. Dy. Registrar of Co-operative Societies-1975 KLT 589 ). ( 3. ) THE plea is taken up for the first time in execution, a proceeding to enforce judgment. It is a collateral attack. Apparently, the order of this Court in CRP. Nos. 1365 of 1984 and 2500 of 1985 (Ext. P1) is valid To ignore it, or to say, that it is void and so a nullity, at this belated stage, would be to blow it off by a side wind. THE petitioners had a right to appeal directly from the judgment of this Court in CRP Nos 1365 of 1984 and 2500 of 1985, by obtaining special leave from the Sup....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l and unreal state of affairs, The decision of the judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Calvin v. Can and others (1979 (2) All. ER 440) at pp. 445 to 447 contains a very useful discussion on this aspect of the matter. ( 4. ) IN Kunjan v. Janaki (1980 KLT 796-DB.) at page 798, viswanatha Iyer, J. held as follows: "a decree made without jurisdiction possesses nonetheless the qualities of a decree as between the parties thereto and if there is a statutory appeal from the decree made in suits of that character, the decree does not become unassailable by appeal If a jurisdiction is usurped by a court in passing a decree against which an appeal would lie if it had been passed with jurisdiction, that appeal cannot be defeated on the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n or undertaking made before the supreme Court. This aspect of the matter has been misunderstood by the second respondent in Ext. P5 order in ordering delivery. There is no substance in this plea The second respondent adverted to the submission made by the Landlord in the Supreme Court and found that there is no evidence to show that the decree holder (Landlord) nor his son is in actual possession of any vacant space in the shopping complex on the date of giving the undertaking before the Hon'ble supreme Court. In this connection, the second respondent adverted to Exts B1, b2 and Ext. X1 and the previous commission report submitted by the Commissioner in the trial stage relied on by the petitioners to substantiate that the decree holder....