M ABDURAHIMAN Vs. NALAKANDY PILLAKKOOL NADEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents/landlords filed R.C.P. No. 39 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Kuthuparamba, under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against Abdurahiman, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein. The Rent Control Court allowed the R.C.P. under Section 11(3) by the order dated 9th August, 2004. The tenants challenged that order in appeal before the Appellate Authority and in revision before the High Court. The High Court granted three months' time to the legal representatives of the tenants (petitioners herein) to vacate, on condition of their filing of undertaking to that effect. The tenants filed SLP (Civil) No. 16794 of 2013 before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was dismissed as per the order dated 9.5.2013. However, the Honourable Supreme Court granted six months' time to the tenants to vacate the petition schedule building on usual undertaking to be filed within four weeks from the date of the order. The tenants filed such an undertaking. As per the undertaking, the tenants had to vacate the building on or before 9.11.2013, but they did not vacate as undertaken by them. This necessitated the filing of an Execution Petition by the landlords. At that juncture, the landlords noticed that an error had crept in with reference to the building number in the schedule shown in the Rent Control Petition. For correcting the error in the Rent Control Petition, they filed I.A. No. 195 of 2014, which was allowed by the Rent Control Court as per the order impugned in this O.P. (R.C.).

(2.) The number of the building shown in the Rent Control Petition was MM20/259. Adjacent room in the building was let out by the landlords to one Ibrahim against whom the landlords had filed R.C.P. No. 40 of 2003. The building number shown in R.C.P. No. 40 of 2003 was MM20/260. However, that was subsequently corrected as MM10/308. Such a correction was not carried out in the Rent Control Petition in the present case, namely, R.C.P. No. 39 of 2003. It is stated that on an enquiry made from the Municipality, the landlords came to know that MM20/259 was assigned to the building for election purposes and that the correct number is MM10/309. The landlords were also told by the Municipality that the temporary number assigned during election as MM20/259 would not be entered in the assessment register. Exhibit A18 extract of a Building Tax Assessment Register shows that the building number is MM10/309 and that it was in the possession of Abdurahiman, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners herein. The tenants had produced Exhibits B16 to B19 in the Rent Control Court, the documents being the receipts for payment of building tax, PFA license fee and profession tax. The number of the building shown in Exhibits B16 to B19 is also MM10/309. Exhibit A16 application filed by the landlords in R.C.P. No. 40 of 2003 to correct the building number was allowed by the Rent Control Court as per Exhibit A11 order and the building number in that case was corrected as MM10/308. On the basis of these clinching documentary evidence, the court below held that the number of the building shown in the Rent Control Petition is an error and the correct number of the building is MM10/309.

(3.) The court below also considered the objection raised by the tenants that after the disposal of the Rent Control Revision by the High Court and SLP by the Supreme Court, the Rent Control Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present application. It was held, relying on the decisions in Vasudevan v. Lakshmi, 2000 3 KerLT 704) and Pradeep Kumar v. State Bank of Travancore, 1998 2 KerLT 927), that the application is maintainable.