KOTTILLIL MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI Vs. ATHANICKAL SARADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORDS are the revision petitioners. Rent Control petition was filed under Sections 11 (2) (b), 11 (4) (i) and 11 (4) (ii) of Act 2 of 1965. Petition was dismissed on all the grounds except under Section 11 (2) (b ). LANDLORDS preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed and hence this revision.

(2.) LANDLORDS took out notice as ordered by this court. First respondent accepted the notice but nobody appeared. Notice to other respondents was taken out but could not be served. Notice was again taken out through the District Court but was returned with the endorsement "not known". Petitioners" contention is that first respondent transferred his rights to the second respondent and another portion to third respondent. Before the Rent Control Court though notice was taken out to all the respondents, notices sent to respondents 2 and 4 to 9 were returned stating "not known". Respondents 2 and 4 to 8 were set ex parte. LANDLORDS also took out notice in the rent control petition to respondents 4 to 9 by publication, but only first and third respondents appeared and contested. In any view, under Section 21 of the Kerala Rent Act an order of eviction passed against the tenant shall be binding on all the sub tenants whether they are parties to the proceedings or not.

(3.) THIRD respondent filed separate counter statement. It is stated that third respondent was helping the business in the petition schedule property. On the side of the landlords fifth petitioner was examined as P. W. 1 Ext. A1 was marked. On the side of the respondents, first respondent was examined as R. W. 1 and third respondent was examined as R. W. 2. Commission was taken out and the commissioner was examined as C. W. 1. Ext. C1 is the commission report and Ext. C2 is the plan.