BABU P.PAPPACHAN Vs. BABY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is respondent No.17 (tenant) in R.C.P.No.39 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad. The Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4) (i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Challenging the order of the Rent Control Court, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.68 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority Thrissur. It is stated that the arguments in the appeal were over and the Appellate Authority reserved the judgment. It is further stated that the case was posted again and again for judgment on different dates. However, no judgment was pronounced. Meanwhile, the landlord filed an application stating that one of the petitioners in the Rent Control Petition died after reserving the judgment and prayed for reopening the case. In that application, it was stated that the Rent Control Appeal had abated. The Appellate Authority allowed the application (I.A.No.992 of 2014) and reopened the case. It is stated that the petitioner has filed an application to implead the legal representatives of the deceased and also to set aside abatement.

(2.) THE relief prayed for in the Original Petition is to set aside the order dated 25.3.2014 in I.A.No.992 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.68 of 2007 and to direct the Appellate Authority to pronounce the judgment in the Rent Control Appeal.

(3.) IT is true that, after the hearing of the case if one of the respondents is dead, there would be no abatement and it would not be necessary to file any application for impleading. The case was adjourned on several days for judgment and finally when it was pointed out that one of the respondents was dead, the court below thought it fit to reopen the case. It is stated in the Original Petition that the petitioner has already filed an application for impleading and for setting aside the abatement. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner by reopening the case. The Appellate Authority shall allow the application for impleading and for setting aside the abatement. Technically speaking, there was no abatement and therefore, the landlord cannot take a contention that the Rent Control Appeal had abated.