JAMAL Vs. SAFIA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a landlord unite different causes of actions against different tenants in a single Rent Control Petition in the event of which such a petition will be bad for misjoinder of causes of actions or misjoinder of parties due to multifariousness, is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court in C.R.P. Nos. 714 of 1992 and 573 of 1993, to which one of us (K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.) was a party has taken the view that rent control legislation does not contemplate a single application against separate tenants holding separate lease arrangements. However it was opined that Rent Control Court can order consolidation of such applications for the purpose of collecting evidence if the Court deems it expedient to do so either because common questions are involved in all of them or on account of any other reason. Another Division Bench of this Court consisting of P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. (as he then was) has considered this question in Sulthan v. Mohanan (2000 (3) KLT 338) and have taken the view that there cannot be any objection to a single petition being maintained for eviction if the claim is for reconstruction of the entire structure. When the present Revision Petitions came up for consideration before a Division Bench, the Bench noticed the conflicting views expressed by the two Division Benches and the matter was placed before us for an authoritative pronouncement.

(3.) Landlord in this case, sought eviction of various tenants in occupation of distinct portions of the same building under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. First counter petitioner is in occupation of T.C. No. 38/679 on a monthly rent of Rs. 36/- which was sublet to the second counter petitioner. T.C. No. 38/680 was rented out to the fourth counter petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 25/-. Fourth petitioner is conducting barbar shop with the help of the fifth counter petitioner, his son. Father of counter petitioners 6, 8, 9 and 11 and husband of the 7th counter petitioner were occupying T.C. Nos. 38/681 and 38/682 on a monthly rent of Rs. 50/-. After the death of their father, 6th counter petitioner is conducting business and counter petitioners 6 to 9 are assisting him.