AHMED Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions arise from the same proceeding before the Rent Control Court. Respondents in these petitions are the landlords of a building which was entrusted to one Shamsuddin against whom petition was filed as R.C.P.48/85 for eviction. The petition was allowed by the Rent Control Court. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed that order and the request for eviction was disallowed. The matter was carried by the landlords to the Revisional Court as R.C.R.P. 103/89. The tenant died on 19-4-1990. Three petitions were filed by the landlords-revision petitioners before District Court, Kozhikode as I.A. 1479/90, 2248/90 and 2249/90 to get the legal representatives impleaded, to set aside the abatement and to excuse the delay in getting the legal representatives' impleaded. The petitions were strongly opposed by the legal representatives of the deceased tenant. By a common order dated 18-9-1991 District Court, Kozhikode allowed the impleading petition I.A.No.1479/ 90 holding that the request for impleadment was made within 15 days of the date of knowledge of the death of the tenant. For this reason the other two applications were dismissed. C.R.P. 1960/91 is directed against the order in I. A. 1479/90 in R.C.R.P. 103/ 89.

(2.) In the meantime the landlords filed a petition for review of the judgment as I.A.53/90 wherein two other interlocutory applications were filed as I.A.1481/90 and I. A. 1482/90 for getting the legal representatives of the deceased tenant impleaded and for amendment of the review petition. Both the interlocutory applications were allowed by the Appellate Authority. The other two revisions, C.R.P. 1655/91 and 1657/91 are directed against those orders.

(3.) Since all these revisions arise from the same rent control petition they were heard jointly and are being disposed of by this common order.