R NARAYANAN Vs. ABDUL JALEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the sole respondent in R. C. P. No. 30 of 2013 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. Respondents 1 to 5 herein instituted R. C. P. No. 30 of 2013 under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) praying for an order evicting the petitioner herein. They had, inter alia, averred in R. C. P. No. 30 of 2013 that the petitioner has without their consent or knowledge sublet the petition scheduled shop room to another and that person is doing business therein.

(2.) Upon receipt of summons the petitioner entered appearance and filed a counter statement wherein, after denying the allegation regarding subletting he stated that ever since the year 2007 he is running the business on a partnership basis. Later, the alleged partner of the petitioner (the sixth respondent herein) got herself impleaded as the supplemental second respondent in RCP No. 30 of 2013 by filing I. A. No. 1467 of 2015. It appears that even earlier disputes had arisen between the petitioner on the one hand and the sixth respondent on the other and she had filed O. S. No. 180 of 2015 in the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode praying for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner as well as the landlords from interfering with the business being run by her in the petition scheduled shop room under the name and style "M/s. Real Toys and Gifts" and also from forcibly evicting her from the petition scheduled shop room.

(3.) Later, the petitioner herein filed O. S. No. 249 of 2017 before the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode arraying the landlords as well as the sixth respondent as defendants. He has in that suit prayed for a decree evicting the sixth respondent and to hand over possession of the petition scheduled shop room to him. He has also prayed for a decree restraining the sixth respondent from obtaining a licence in her name and from conducting any business in the petition scheduled shop room. He has also prayed for a permanent prohibitory injection restraining the landlords from entering into a tenancy arrangement with the sixth respondent or any other person, pending disposal of R. C. P. No. 30 of 201