A.J. VARGHESE AND OTHERS Vs. V. MOHANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlords are in appeal. They are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions taken by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority to decline the order of eviction which was sought on the ground of additional accommodation under sub Section 8 of Section 11. Going by the Rent Control Petition, the landlords are three brothers by name A.J. Varghese. A.J. Paul and A.J. John. According to them, they are in occupation of a substantial portion of a two storied building situated at Fort, Thiruvananthapuram. The respondent in RCR. 375/10 corresponding to RCP.30/04 is conducting jewellery business under the name and style "Nivea Jewellery" in another portion of the same building. The respondent in RCR.377/10 corresponding to RCP. 31/04 is conducting another jewellery under the name and style "Trichur Jewellers" in yet another part of the very same larger building. The common need projected by the petitioners in both these RCPs is to expand their ongoing business which is conducted under the name and style "Alukkas Jewellery". The bonafides of the need was disputed and the cases went for trial. The statutory authorities have under their orders noticed the evidence which is to the effect that Alukkas Jewellery is a partnership firm and it is the need of that partnership firm which is sought to be accomplished by seeking eviction. The statutory final fact finding authority, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has found under the impugned judgment that Alukkas Jewellery is a partnership firm and that it is that Jewellery which is conducting business in the larger portion of the double storied building. Nevertheless, eviction order was declined mainly on the reason that the Rent Control Petition lacks in pleadings to the effect that Alukkas Jewellery is a partnership firm and it is that firm which is in need of accommodation. Yet another reason stated by the Appellate Authority is that the petitioners in the Rent Control Petition (the signatories to the RCP) are not shown to be partners of the said business under any of the documents produced before the court.

(2.) In both these RCRs. the petitioners have produced certain documents which purport to show that the signatories to the Rent Control Petitions are partners of Alukkas Jewellery, registered partnership firm. The request of Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners was that those documents be accepted by us in evidence and the issue be decided finally.

(3.) The above request is opposed by Advocate Sri.K. Ramachandran and Sri.T. Krishnanunni, senior counsel appearing for the respondents in these revisions. Accordi g to them, the jurisdictional limits of Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 will not permit admitting documents at the revisional stage. They would also submit that admitting these documents at this stage will result in prejudice to the respondent. They would submit further that at any rate without proper foundation in pleadings these documents cannot form legal evidence in the case.