(1.) The question involved in this O.P.(R.C.) is whether the Rent Control Court exercising jurisdiction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has jurisdiction to add an additional respondent in the Rent Control Petition on the application of the petitioner/landlord. In the present case, it is stated in the Rent Control Petition that the landlord (Jayaprakash) and his friend Lalan jointly purchased the undivided ownership in a property having an extent of 4,372 cents consisting of a two storied building in which several rooms are there. It is also stated in the Rent Control Petition that the landlord also purchased undivided rights and absolute rights in certain adjoining rooms. Similarly, Lalan also purchased some of the rooms and undivided interest in the adjoining lands. In the Rent Control Petition, it is also stated that the landlord and Lalan have bona fide need to conduct a super market in the building. Some of the tenants did not agree to vacate. This necessitated the filing of the Rent Control Petitions to evict the tenants who did not agree to vacate. The tenant in R.C.P. No. 118 of 2009 is K. Mohan, the petitioner in the present O.P.(R.C).
(2.) According to the landlord, K. Mohan is the tenant of the petition schedule building. In the counter statement filed by Mohan, he stated thus:
(3.) A Commissioner was appointed to inspect the petition schedule building. The Commissioner stated in the report that K. Mohan is the tenant of the petition schedule building and he is conducting a textile shop therein. The report further shows that the tenant made a request to the Commissioner to note the dimensions of the petition schedule room. Though an objection was filed to the Commissioner's Report, Mohan did not deny the statement that he was present at the time of inspection by the Commissioner or the statement that he wanted the Commissioner to note certain details. However, in paragraph 3 of the objection, Mohan stated thus: