MEENAKSHY Vs. KAMALAKSHY AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION Petitioners are tenants of a portion of a building owned by respondents who sought eviction of the premises on the ground of bona fide need and reconstruction. Three petitions had been filed before the rent Control Court, Ernakulam as R. C. P. Nos. 152 of 1989,155 of 1989 and 158 of 1989 in respect of three rooms in that building. A common order was passed by the Rent Control Court on 19-12-1992 pertaining to R. C. P. 152 of 1989 and 158 of 1989 allowing those petitions under S. 11 (2) (b),11 (3) and 11 (4) (iv) of the rent Control Act. Landlords were directed to reconstruct the whole building within six months from the date of recovery of possession. It is also observed that the tenants shall have the first option to have the reconstructed building except one room allotted to them with liability to pay fair rent.

(2.) TWO appeals were preferred against that order, one by the respondent in R. C. P. No. 152 of 1989 as R. C. A. No. 154 of 1992 and the other by respondents in R. C. P. 158 of 1989 as R. C. A. NO. 115 of 1992. R. C. A. No. 154 of 1992 was filed out of time and the request for condonation of delay was declined by the order passed in I. A. No. 1901 of 1992. In consequence, that appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The other appeal, R. C. A. No. 115 of 1992 was considered on merits and the Appellate Authority concurred with the order of the Rent Control Court . It is against that judgment that respondents in R. C. P. No. 158 of 1989 have come up in revision.

(3.) WHEN the matter came up for admission on 26-5-194, learned counsel for revision petitioners asserted that the plea of denial of title raised by tenants was not considered by the authorities below. This being a relevant aspect which the Rent Control Court was bound to consider by virtue of the second proviso to S. 11 (1) of the Act, we called for the records of the lower authorities and the matter again came up before us on the next day by which time the records were received. On a perusal of the written statement filed by revision petitioners it is seen that the contention now advanced by counsel is unsustainable. The averment in the written statement is that petitioners are not the sole owners of the building. It is averred that to the knowledge of the respondents, Narayana Menon to whom the building belonged had left a daughter by name Kunhikavu. She had filed a suit for partition. The contention therefore is that the petition for eviction without impleading kunhikavu is not maintainable. On a careful reading of paragraph 2 of the written statement, we are not able to find a denial of title of landlord in order to attract the second proviso to S. 11 (1) of the Act. That the 1st petitioner is the widow of Narayana Menon and 2nd petitioner their son is not disputed in the written statement. The only plea as we could understand is one of maintainability of the petition for non joinder of one Kunhikavu who is alleged to be the daughter of Narayana Menon. It appears that Kunhikavu has filed a suit and the matter is now pending in appeal. Whether she has a right over the building or not, or whether she is a co-owner along with the petitioners in the Rent Control Petition are not matters to be considered in a rent control petition.