BHARATHAKSHMAM Vs. MANGALODAYAM PVT LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises from R.C.P. No. 122 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent in the R.C.P. The respondent in the revision is the landlord and the petitioner in the R.C.P.

(2.) The landlord filed R.C.P. No.122 of 1997 praying for eviction of the tenant under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, before the Rent Control Court, the counsel for the landlord submitted that the landlord was not pressing the relief under S.11(2)(b) and 11(8) of the Act. The Rent Control Court dismissed the R.C.P. holding that the landlord was not entitled to an order of eviction under S.11(3) as the need put forward by the landlord was not bona fide.

(3.) Against the order of the Rent Control Court, the landlord filed R.C.A. No.101 of 1999 in the Court of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. The landlord also filed I.A. No. 780 of 2001 praying that the appellant may be permitted to amend the memorandum of appeal to include the statement of facts pressing eviction under S.11(8) of the Act and also additional grounds. Through the amendment, the appellant wanted to add a brief statement of facts and three additional grounds as grounds 28 to 30 in the appeal memorandum. In the affidavit in support of the application for amendment, it was averred that the R.C.P. was filed under S.11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Act. At the time of trial, there were no arrears. So the Manager of the appellant company, who was examined as P.W.1 stated that no rent arrears were due from the respondents. However, the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition submitted before the Rent Control Court that he was not pressing any relief sought for under S.11(2)(b) and 11(8) of the Act. It was also stated in the affidavit that the counsel who was appearing in the Rent Control Court had filed the appeal but he later relinquished his vakalath three months prior to the date of filing of the application for amendment. Only when the appellant consulted a new lawyer, the appellant came to know that the counsel had not pressed any relief under S.11(8) of the Act. It was further averred in the affidavit that the pleadings in the case would show that the petition was filed under S.11(8) and not under S.11(3) of the Act and that the appellant never instructed to the counsel to submit that the appellant was not pressing any relief under S.11(8) of the Act. It was further averred that the counsel made the concession without informing the appellant and without discussing the matter with the appellant. The memorandum of appeal was prepared by the same lawyer and hence the above aspect was not projected in the appeal memorandum.