ANANDAN Vs. VALSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the time when the Civil Revision Petition came up for admission, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 who have filed a caveat in the matter. Sixth respondent is one of the daughters of the original landlord whose other legal representatives are respondents 2 to 5. Since she has the same contentions it was submitted that counsel for respondents 2 to 5 takes notice for her also. We are admitting the C.R.P. and disposing of the same by this order. In the manner in which we propose to dispose of the CRP, it is unnecessary to issue notice to the first respondent tenant who has not filed any appeal against the order of eviction.

(2.) The main question arising for consideration in the revision is whether a person impleaded as a subtenant in an eviction petition under the Kerala Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act (for short "the Act") and who has specifically pleaded that he is only a paid employee of the tenant, can prefer an appeal against the order passed in the petition accepting his contention in toto and ordering eviction on the ground of bona fide need against the tenant alone A further question also arises for consideration as to whether in a cross appeal or cross objection filed in an appeal which is found to be not maintainable in law

(3.) Revision petitioners were impleaded as respondents 2 and 3 in the RCP filed under S.11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Act on the allegation that they are sublessees put in possession of the building without the consent and knowledge of the landlord by the tenant first respondent in CRP. Petitioners and the tenant refuted the allegation that the petitioners are sublessees and contended that they are paid employees of the first respondent tenant. The said contention was accepted by the Rent Control Court. The Rent Control Court, however, on the basis of the evidence on record passed an order of eviction finding bona fide need and declined to pass an order under S.11(4)(i) of the Act.