KRISHNA IYER Vs. ABDUL RASHEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions involved in these revisions are:

(2.) The landlord filed I.A. No. 38 of 2011 in R.C.P. No. 39 of 2010 for joint trial of both the Rent Control Petitions. The respondent in I.A. No. 38 of 2011 is the respondent in R.C.P. No. 39 of 2010. Copy of the application for joint trial was served on the respondent in that application as well as the tenant in R.C.P. No. 38 of 2010. The Rent Control Court allowed the application for joint trial. The two Rent Control Petitions were jointly tried and they were disposed of by a common order by the Rent Control Court. R.C.P. No. 38 of 2010 was allowed under S. 11(8) and R.C.P. No. 39 of 2010 was allowed under S. 11(3) of the Act.

(3.) Challenging the common order passed by the Rent Control Court, the respective tenants filed Rent Control Appeal Nos. 49 of 2011 and 53 of 2011 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Palakkad. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeals and remanded the Rent Control Petitions to the Rent Control Court for fresh disposal, with a direction to try the Rent Control Petitions separately. It was held by the Appellate Authority that the Rent Control Court was not right in trying the Rent Control Petitions jointly. The Appellate Authority mainly relied on the decision of this Court in Sasidharan v. Saroja, 2004 2 KerLT 885) and held that the parties in one case had no opportunity to peruse the documents produced in the other case and thus prejudice was caused to them. It was also held by the Appellate Authority, relying on Ebrahim Ismail Kunju v. Phasila Beevi, 1991 2 KerLT 861), that the mere fact that all the rooms are situated in the same building would not justify a joint trial of the cases in respect of those rooms.