SALEEM BABU Vs. HYDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri dismissing I.A.No.2110 of 2014 filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.126 of 2002. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the land lord of a premises. In the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri there are four civil suits between the parties. Details of which are as follows:

(2.) O.S.No.126 of 2002 is a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent seeking an injunction against eviction otherwise than in accordance with law from the tenanted premises. O.S.No.107 of 2013 is a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner seeking mandatory injunction to require him to remove unauthorized construction allegedly made by him. O.S.No.192 of 2013 is also a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent seeking an order of injunction against him. O.S.No.593 of 2013 is yet another suit filed by the petitioner claiming damages against the respondent. In the Rent Control Court, Manjeri respondent land lord has also filed R.C.P.No.17 of 2013 seeking eviction of the petitioner under sections 11(2),(b), 11(3) and 11(4) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In O.S.No.126 of 2012, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2110 of 2014 seeking joint trial of the suits along with R.C.P. No.17 of 2013. In that I.A. the court below has passed Ext.P1 order holding that original suits cannot be jointly tried along with Rent Control Petition. It is this order under challenge before us.

(3.) We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. And another, 2007 1 SCC 97 and judgments of this Court in Kuruvilla Abraham Vs. John, 1995 1 KerLT 161, Sathyaseelan Vs. Madhavan Kalanadhan, 2002 1 KerLT 913 and Jose Antony Thottassery Vs. Anil Kuruvilla & others, 2012 1 KerLT 531, the counsel for the petitioner contended that the suits and the Rent Control Petition are connected and that the civil court would have been well within its jurisdiction in jointly trying original suits along with Rent Control Petition. However this contention was refuted by the counsel for the respondent land lord stating that law is settled that the civil court cannot try a rent control petition filed under the Rent Control Act. He relied on the judgments of this Court in Kunjali Hassan Kurup Vs. Abdul Sathr Sait,1963 KerLT 407 and Perinigottukara Namboodiri Yogakshema Sabha Vs. Sreelatha, 2005 2 KerLT 480. On this basis the counsel sought dismissal of the original petition.