MOHAMMED ABDULLAH Vs. M.P.ASHIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the dismissal of a tenant's revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short, against a judgment of the Appellate Authority, deprive the landlord of the right to challenge the very same judgment of the Appellate Authority in revision, in all cases What is the extent of effect of the doctrine of merger, if any These are pithily, the questions raised for decision in these Rent Control Revisions.

(2.) The relevant facts are not in dispute. R.C.P.Nos.34 of 2003, 36 of 2003 and 38 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Rent Control Court, Kannur have been instituted in respect of different portions of a building occupied by three tenants. The landlord sought eviction of the tenants under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. In the course of the proceedings, the landlord died. On her death, her legal representatives continued the lis as additional landlords. The case set up in the Eviction Petition was that the building is in a dilapidated condition and that it needs to be reconstructed for the occupation of one of additional landlords. The Rent Control Court, by a common order, allowed R.C.P.No.36 of 2003 and R.C.P.No.38 of 2003, upholding all the grounds and dismissed R.C.P. No.34 of 2003. Even though, the claim for eviction under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act was upheld, the tenants were not extended the benefit of first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to them as provided for under the third proviso to section 11(4)(iv) of the Act.

(3.) The common order of the Rent Control Court in R.C.P.Nos.36 of 2003 and 38 of 2003 was challenged by the tenants concerned before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.157 of 2004 and R.C.A.No.4 of 2005. One of the landlords also challenged the decision in R.C.P.No.34 of 2003 before the Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.117 of 2005. The Appellate Authority, by a common order, dismissed R.C.A.Nos.157 of 2004 and 4 of 2005 preferred by the tenants and allowed R.C.A.No.177 of 2005 preferred by the landlord, ordering eviction in R.C.P.No.34 of 2003 also under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act. Further, the Appellate Authority directed the landlords to reconstruct the building within six months and extended to the tenants the benefit of first option to have the reconstructed building allotted to them, as provided for under the third proviso to section 11(4)(iv) of the Act. The operative portion of the decision of the Appellate Authority dealing with the said direction reads as follows :