KUNHAMU Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The one and perhaps the only important issue which arises for decision in this revision under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is, whether the single Rent Control Petition instituted by the respondents for evicting the revision petitioners two tenants occupying two rooms in a larger building, on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act, is maintainable The revision petitioner in R.C.R. No. 189/2008 at the earliest opportunity itself raised the contention that the Rent Control Petition is not maintainable in law as the landlord has instituted a single Rent Control Petition for evicting himself and another tenant, who were governed by two different tenancies. The above contention did not find favour with either the Rent Control Court or the Appellate Authority. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the need which was projected by the landlord in the context of the ground under Sub-section (3) of Section 11 was a bona fide one and that both the tenants, who were arrayed as co-respondents in the R.C.P. were unsuccessful in establishing that they were eligible for the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3). Accordingly order of eviction was passed against both of them.

(2.) Sri. K.G. Gowri Shankar Rai, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner in R.C.R. No. 189/08 would place strong reliance on the order of the Full Bench in Jamal v. Sofia Beevi, 2005 2 KerLT 359 and submit that in view of the above decision of the Full Bench it has to be held that the Rent Control Petition is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties and hence not maintainable in law. Mr. Gowri Shankar Rai was supported in all his submissions by Sri. Jayesh Mohankumar, who appeared for revision petitioner in R.C.R. No. 202/08.

(3.) In fact the Order of the Full Bench in Jamal v. Safia Beevi (cited supra) was cited before the Appellate Authority also. But the said authority, after discussing the Full Bench order, would take the view that the Full Bench decision did not apply to the facts which obtained in the case..