V. AMUDINI Vs. B. LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is filed by the tenant in R.C.P. No. 21/2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said R.C.P was filed by the respondent herein, landlady, seeking eviction of the petitioner from building Nos. T.C.30/810 and T.C.30/812. The grounds urged in the petition were under Secs. 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. The Rent Control Court vide order dated 20.3.2012 allowed the petition as prayed for. The tenant challenged the said order in R.C.A. No. 23/2012 before the appellate authority and also cleared the arrears of rent in the meanwhile. The appellate authority reversed the findings under Sec. 11(4)(ii) and sustained the finding under Sec. 11(3). It is in these circumstances, the tenant has filed this revision.

(2.) WE heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent -landlady.

(3.) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioner, the causes of action in relation to the two different buildings being distinct and different, a single petition could not have been filed and that therefore, the rent control petition was defective for misjoinder for causes of action. In support of this contention, counsel drew our attention to the principles laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Annie George v. Jamal : (2003 (2) KLT 530) and the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jamal v. Safia Beevi [ : 2005 (2) KLT 359 (FB)].