MINI GEORGE Vs. BABU PHILIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision petition filed under S.20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the Rent Control Court allowing the rent control petition filed by the first respondent landlord ordering eviction under sub-section (8) of S.11, requirement of additional accommodation for personal use of the landlord. The revision petitioner is the 4th respondent in the rent control petition and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are respectively respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the rent control petition. The revision petitioner is the daughter of the 2nd respondent and sister of respondents 3 and 4. The petition schedule building is a commercial building where the revision petitioner's father late P. X. George used to conduct a photo studio by name 'Vimala Studio'. Upon demise of Sri. P. X. George, the tenant, the tenancy rights devolved upon respondents 2 to 4 and the revision petitioner and it is on that basis that the rent control petition was filed against these four persons. The rent control petition was very stiffly contested by respondents 2 to 4 raising all possible contentions. The revision petitioner is residing in Abu Dhabi. Notice to her was served on her mother the second respondent and in spite of such service the revision petitioner remained ex parte. The contention which was prominently raised by the revision petitioner before the Rent Control Appellate Authority was that there was no proper service of notice on her and that due to want of such service she was disabled from raising contest in the rent control petition. The above contention has been repelled by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority under the impugned judgment holding that there is sufficient service of notice of the rent control petition on the revision petitioner also.

(2.) Sri. M. S. Narayanan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would address us extensively on the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. He drew our attention to O.5 R.15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Thomas Joseph v. Catholic Syrian Bank, 1998 KHC 76 : 1998 (1) KLT 986 : ILR 1998 (3) Ker. 268. He submitted that when substituted service of summons on a party is effected by service on an adult member of a family, it is obligatory that the concerned party is residing along with the adult member.

(3.) We are unable to accept the argument of Mr. M. S. Narayanan. True, it has been held in Thomas Joseph v. Catholic Syrian Bank (supra) that substituted service of notice under O.5 R.15 CPC can be effected only on an adult member of the family who is actually residing along with the party concerned. It has been also held that 'no matter how close a relative may be, notice to a particular respondent cannot be effected on such a family member, if he or she is not residing with him'. But according to us, R.15 of O.V CPC cannot have application to proceeding before the Rent Control Court. Service of notice on respondents in rent control proceedings is governed by the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979 and the relevant rule is sub-rule (4) of R.11 which we extract below: