GOPINATHAN P.A. Vs. LEELADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this original petition challenging Ext.P7 order of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Chittur in I.A.2778/2014 in RCP 2/2014. As per the impugned order, the request of the petitioner to try the Rent Control Petition jointly with a suit O.S.307/2014 has been dismissed.

(2.) According to the counsel for the petitioner Shri.Sajan Varghese the issues that arise for consideration as well as the questions to be decided in both the proceedings are the same.

(3.) We have heard the counsel for the petitioner at length. We notice that, the Rent Control Petition, RCP 2/2014 is pending before the Rent Control Court, Chittur. O.S.307/2014 is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Chittur. It is true that, both the jurisdictions are exercised by the same court. However, the fact remains that both the proceedings are instituted under different enactments. The suit is instituted under the Code of Civil Procedure whereas the Rent Control Petition is instituted under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The powers conferred on the Rent Control Court as well as the Munsiff's Court by the respective enactments are also different. The petition seeking joint trial of the Rent Control Petition along with the Original Suit is produced as Ext.P5.A perusal of Ext.P5 shows that the petition is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the provision shown is Section 151 the peition is actually filed before the Rent Control Court. The petition has been opposed by the respondent by filing Ext.P6 objections. It is after considering the objections that Ext.P7 order has been passed.The Rent Control Court has found that the Rent Control Petition as well as the Original Suit are to be tried in exercise of different jurisdictions. Therefore, the Rent Control Court has accepted the objections raised by the respondent in Ext.P6 and has dismissed the same. We find no infirmity in the said order.