(1.) Revision petitioners are defendants 4 and S in O. S.448 of 1983 of the Munsiff's Court, Parur. There are six defendants in the suit. They are in possession of six shop rooms in a line building. Each one has taken possession of the shop room from the landlord under separate agreements of tenancy. Plaintiff, who obtained landlord's right filed O. S.448 of 1983 against all the six defendants. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 raised the contention that a single suit against all the six defendants is not maintainable. The learned Munsiff held that there is no mis-joinder of causes of action and no mis-joinder of parties and hence the suit is maintainable.
(2.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that plaintiff wants to demolish the entire building, that as the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is not applicable to the area where the petition scheduled building is situated, the only defence available to the defendants is with regard to the propriety or legality of the notice and as that is the common question to be decided the suit filed against all the defendants is maintainable. He contended that a single suit can be filed against different tenants, where common questions of law or fact would arise. Contention of the plaintiff is that he wants to reconstruct the whole building and therefore, there is no necessity to file separate suits against the different tenants. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that filing of single suit would be advantageous to all the parties concerned and it would not in any way affect the defence available to the defendants. It is pointed out that the plaintiff has sent notices to the defendants terminating the tenancy as provided under S.106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
(3.) Counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that a single suit against different tenants is not maintainable. He relied on the decision reported in AIR 1971 Allahabad 501. (Kali Charan v. Ganesh Prasad & others). In Para.3 of the above decision it is held as follows: