MADAYI SYAMALA Vs. SUDHA SUNDARESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE predecessor -in -interest of respondents 1 to 4 filed R.C.P No. 53 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode against respondents 5 and 6 in their capacity as the legal representatives of the original tenant, under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. In that Rent Control Petition, the bonafide need put forward was that the grand daughter of the landlord, who was examined as PW2 wanted to start a plant nursery. The Rent Control Court by order dated 30.3.2009 allowed the Rent Control Petition. Though the tenants filed R.C.A No.65 of 2009, the appeal was dismissed by judgment dated 17.10.2011. The tenants filed revision before the High Court which was disposed of as per judgment dated 16.3.2012 granting 15 months' time to the tenants to vacate the petition schedule building and also directing them to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/ - per month from 1.4.2012 onwards.

(2.) WHEN execution was levied, the petitioner herein and her daughter filed E.A.No.133 of 2013 in E.P No.183 of 2012 before the Executing Court putting forward their claim and contending that they are not bound by the orders and judgments passed by the authorities under the Rent Control Act. They contended that they are the widow and daughter of the original tenant and therefore they should have been made parties to the Rent Control Petition. They were not made parties and they were left out deliberately to defeat their rights. While E.A.No.133 of 2013 was pending, the petitioner herein filed E.A.No.189 of 2013 and 172 of 2013 to serve interrogatories on respondents 1 to 4 herein (landlords) and to produce certain documents on behalf of the claimants. Those applications were dismissed by separate orders by the Executing Court on 25.7.2013 (Ext.P12) and 18.7.2013 (Ext.P11). Exts.P11 and P12 orders were challenged by the claimants before this Court in O.P(RC) No.2625 of 2013. It was contended that E.A No.189 of 2013 and 172 of 2013 were filed to unearth the fraud practised by the landlords. According to the claimants PW2 was working in IBM at the relevant time. However, this Court did not accept the contentions put forward by the claimants since this Court noticed in O.P(RC) No.2625 of 2013 that there was no contention of fraud put forward by the claimants in E.A.No.133 of 2013, the claim petition.

(3.) EXT .P16 order was challenged by the claim petitioners in A.S.No.21 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Kozhikode. In that appeal the claim petitioners challenged the dismissal of E.A.No.34 of 2014 as well. The claim petitioners filed I.A.No.262 of 2014 in A.S No.21 of 2014 to stay the proceedings in execution. That application was adjourned for filing counter, since the landlords had filed caveat. In the meanwhile, the Executing Court ordered delivery.