ORDER
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
1. Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 is the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Chengannur in the assumed capacity of Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chengannur dismissing an application for condoning the delay of 9 days caused in the matter of filing a Rent Control Appeal under Section 18 and the judgment consequently rejecting the appeal as time barred. On considering the revision for admission, this Court directed the Registry to enquire of the learned Subordinate Judge as to whether any notification has been issued notifying the Sub Judge, Chengannur as Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. The learned Subordinate Judge would inform the Registry that he has not come across any notification notifying the Sub Judge, Chengannur as Appellate Authority under Section 18 of the Rent Control Act. He however, referred to the judgment of this Court in Vijayappa Kurup v. Padmanabhan 2009 (2) KLT 939 for justifying the action of having decided the Rent Control Appeal even in the absence of a notification under Section 18(1)(a) of Act 2 of 1965. It is very clear to our mind that the judgment of this Court in Vijayappa Kurup v. Padmanabhan 2009 (2) KLT 939 has no application at all to the issue which has arisen in the present case, i.e., the jurisdictional competence of a Subordinate Judge to function as a Rent Control Appellate Authority under Section 18 to decide a regular Rent Control Appeal filed under Section 18. Vijayappa Kurup's case was one where this Court was dealing with a revision filed in terms of Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965. The proviso to Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965 is that order passed by the execution court (ordinarily the Principal Munsiff or the only Munsiff of the station) is not appealable but is subject to revision by the court to which appeals ordinarily lie against the decision of the said Munsiff. The issue which arose in Vijayappa Kurup's case was whether it is the District Court, Alappuzha or the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cherthala which has jurisdiction to entertain a Revision Petition under Section 14 against the order passed by the Munsiff Cherthala in a proceeding for execution of an eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court, Cherthala. This Court held inter alia in Vijayappa Kurup's case that under Section 13 of the Kerala Civil Courts Act appeals against the decrees and orders of Munsiff irrespective of valuation lie ordinarily to the District Court. It was also held that in an extraordinary situation where the Sub Court is established in a place other than the place where the District Court is stationed, appeals against the decrees and orders of the Munsiff Court may be preferred in the Sub Court. Accordingly, it was held that the District Court, Alapuzha which had entertained the Revision Petition under Section 14, which was subject matter of that case, was perfectly justified in entertaining the revision. So saying this Court repelled the argument advanced in that case that the District Court lacked inherent jurisdiction.
2. The situation that obtains in the present case is entirely different. As matters obtain now, it is District Judges alone who are notified as Appellate Authorities under Section 18(1)(a) of Act 2 of 1965 (see GO.(MS) No. 50/89/Housing dt 31.8.1989). It was beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Sub Judge at Chengannur to have entertained the R.C.A. R.C.A. and all interlocutory proceedings therein should have been returned by the Sub Court, Chegannur to the appellant for presentation before the proper court. We therefore set aside the impugned order and judgment and remit the matter back to the learned Subordinate Judge to be dealt with in accordance with law. The appeal memo and all other related papers will be returned to the revision petitioner by the court below atleast by the 25th instant. It is needless to mention that if the petitioner re-presents the appeal memo before the Rent Control Appellate Authority; that Authority will exclude the period from the date of institution of the R.C.A. before that court till 7.4.2010 from the reckoning, for limitation, invoking Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. In view of the above order the interim order which we have passed in this case will continue till 9.4.2010.
Issue photocopy today itself.