PERINIGOTTUKARA NAMBOOTHIRI YOGAKSHEMA SABHA Vs. SREELATHA RADHAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Transfer Petition seeks transfer of a petition for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 presently pending before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, over to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thrissur for the purpose of joint trial with a mortgage suit pending before that Court. The petitioners are the respondents in the Rent Control Petition. Petitioners in the Rent Control Petition are the legal heirs of one Radhakrishnan who was the 7th defendant in the suit. The suit was for recovery of about Rs. 15 lakhs allegedly advanced by the plaintiff-1st petitioner to the 10th defendant in the suit, a Trust by name Pallath Prabhakaran Master Memorial Trust. The case of the plaintiff in the suit is that amounts were advanced to the defendants on the security of immovable properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, being equitably mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff. According to the petitioners, the building which is subject matter of the R.C.P. is situated on one of the items of the plaint schedule property. The transfer of the R.C.P. is sought on the ground that unless the R.C.P. and the suit are tried jointly, there will be duplicity of findings and the plaint claim being much more than the rent allegedly due in respect of the building involved in the R.C.P., the plaintiff is entitled to have adjustment of the alleged rent arrears against the plaint claim. Annexure-B application, according to the petitioners, has already been filed in the suit seeking permission to make such adjustment.

(2.) Through a detailed counter-affidavit tiled by the respondents it is contended that the principal contesting defendants in the suit who are really accountable for the liability which is subject-matter of the suit have not been made parties to the Transfer Petition. It is further contended that the building which is subject-matter of the R.C.P. belongs exclusively to the respondents and that the said building is not subject-matter of any mortgage in favour of the plaintiff in the suit. More seriously it is contended that the Thrissur Sub Court lacks in inherent jurisdiction to entertain the Rent Control Petition now pending before the Ernakulam Rent Control Court or for that matter any other Rent Control Petition. The Ernakulam Rent Control Court alone has jurisdiction to decide Annexure-C Rent Control Petition. It is also contended that the real objective behind the filing of the Transfer Petition is to get away from the obligation of discharging the arrears of rent payable for the building and thereby to make the lives of the respondents, a hapless widow and her two minor children, all the more miserable.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of Sri.V.R.K. Kaimal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.A.K. Seshadri, learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the rival pleadings and scanned all the materials placed on record.