CHAKOLA SILK HOUSE Vs. ABDUL SATHAR ISMAIL SAIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitioners are the tenants. The first respondent is the landlord and the petitioner in the Rent Control Petition. The above revision has been filed against the judgment in R.C.A. 31 of 1991 on the file of the Second Addl. District Judge and Rent Control Appellate Authority arising from the order in R.C.P. 124 of 1987 on the file of the Second Additional Munsiff and Rent Controller, Ernakulam First respondent filed the R.C.P. against the revision petitioners and respondents 2 to 9. Eviction was sought on the grounds of;

(2.) A Division Bench of this court, by order dated 25-8-1994, allowed the revision petition, reversed the judgment of the Appellate Authority and sustained the order of the Rent Controller. The Division Bench has also allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2848/94 filed by the revision petitioners/tenants for reception of certain documents in revision. The Division Bench felt that the documents now sought to be produced can be admitted in this revision. The documents sought to be produced are only extracts from the Registrar of Firms and partnership deeds (not originals). The Division Bench allowed the CMP and admitted the documents in evidence and permitted them to be marked as Exhibits on the side of the revision petitioners as Exts. B11 to B17. Aggrieved against the order in the revision petition and in CMP. 2848 of 1994, the landlord preferred Civil Appeal No. 11734 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 21233/94) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court passed the following order:

(3.) On remittal, the revision petition was listed before a Division Bench consisting of one of us (AR. Lakshmanan, J.) for further enquiry. As already noticed, along with CMP 2848 of 1994, only attested photo copies of those documents were filed and marked by this court. In substitution thereof, the tenants have now filed all the original documents except Ext. B12 in C.M.P. 4503 of 1997. For proof under the Evidence Act, the tenants were willing to tender proof in support of the documents and so the documents were received in original and marked as Exts. B11, B13 to B17. Ext. B12 is only a true copy. Thereafter, we directed the Rent Controller to examine the witnesses and record their evidence in proof of Exts. B11 to B17. Counsel for the landlord was given liberty to cross examine the witnesses. The Rent Controller was directed to record the evidence and submit the recorded evidence along with the entire case records and documents to this court. Accordingly, both parties appeared before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller recorded the evidence of R.W. 2 on 5-3-1998 and forwarded the same to this court. No other witness were examined on either side.