SULEKHA UMMA Vs. KALAIVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioners, landlords, filed R.C.P. No. 44/1979 before the Rent Controller, Palghat against Ramanathan, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, seeking his eviction from the disputed premises under sub-sections (2) and (3) of S.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). Tenant raised a contention that he is a kudikidappukaran entitled to immunity from eviction under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Land Tribunal upheld the claim of the tenant and forwarded the finding to the Rent Controller. Thereupon, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition but without costs.

(2.) Landlords filed appeal before the Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Palghat in R.C.A. 24/1982. Pending appeal, the tenant died. R.10 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules') prescribes a period of 15 days for impleading legal representatives of a deceased person, party to a proceeding. Appellants filed an application I.A. 3996/1983 seeking to implead as additional respondents in appeal the legal representatives of the tenant viz, the respondents herein. The application was filed out of time. They filed I.A. 3997/1983 for consequential amendment of the appeal memorandum. They also filed I.A. 4189/1983 seeking to set aside abatement which occurred on account of the delay in filing the impleading petition. Appellate Authority dismissed I.A. 3996 of 1983 on the ground that it had no authority to implead legal representatives beyond the time prescribed in the Rules and to condone the delay in filing the application. I.A. 4189/1983 was dismissed on the ground that it had no power to set aside abatement. I.A. 3997/1983 filed for consequential amendment was also dismissed. The appeal itself was dismissed as abated.

(3.) Against the orders in the three interlocutory applications and the Judgment in the appeal, landlords filed revision petitions before the District Court, Palghat as R.C.R.P. Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23 of 1984. These revision petitions were dismissed. Hence the present revision petitions.