ANIL P.VARGHESE Vs. NAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising for adjudication in this revision is : Whether the principles enunciated in Order XXII Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'the Code') read with Section 22 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, 'the Act') could be invoked to surmount the defect of non- impleadment of legal representatives of a tenant in a petition for eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act? Can it be assumed that the Rent Control Court had granted an implied exemption to the petitioner from the necessity of substituting legal representatives of the deceased 1st respondent ?

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and respondents.

(3.) The facts in nut shell are as follows; Respondents filed a petition for eviction with deceased Kunjamma Thomas as the 1st respondent and the revision petitioner as the 2nd respondent. It is the specific case pleaded by the respondents in the eviction petition that Kunjamma Thomas was the tenant to whom the building had been entrusted for a monthly rent. According to them, Kunjamma Thomas without the knowledge and consent of the landlords, sub-let the building to the revision petitioner. It is also contended that the sub-lease is an objectionable one. Respondents' case, therefore, is that deceased Kunjamma Thomas and the revision petitioner are liable to be evicted on the afore- mentioned grounds.