IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 22357 of 2007(J) -------------------------- RCA.6/2006 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.51/2004 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER: ------------- C.J. ANTONY, SON OF JOSEPH, AGED 69, PROPRIETOR, CHATHANATTU AGENCY, C.C.NO.16/981, P.T.JACOB ROAD, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. K.J. FRANCIS, SON OF LATE JOSEPH, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAMESWARAM PADINJARE MURI, THOPPUMPADI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 2. JAMES ALBY, SON OF LATE JOSPEH, KANJIRAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAMESWARAM PADINJARE MURI, THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE AND POWER HOLDER, PRABHA ALBY, W/O.JAMES ALBY,KANJIRAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,RAMESWARAM PADINJARE MURI,THOPPUMPADY VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK. 3. CICILY CLEETUS, WIFE OF LATE CLEETUS, KANJIRAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAMESWARAM PADINJARE MURI, THOPPUMPADI VILLAGE, KOCHI-5. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 213 OF 2007 THE COURT ON 02/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 22357 OF 2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.21.12.04 IN RCP 51 OF 2004. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENT IN RC 51 OF 2004 RENT CONTROL COURT, KOCHI. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 2602/05 IN RCP 52/04 OF MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER OF KOCHI DT.03.12.05. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT IN RCA 6/06, 117/05 & 120/05 OF DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DT.01.03.07. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------- W.P(C)NO:22357/07 & R.C.R.213/07 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd January, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. W.P(C) No: 22357/07 The writ petitioner is the counter petitioner in RCP 51/04 on the files of the Court of Rent Controller, Kochi. The landlords have moved eviction of three tenants under them occupying three shop rooms belonging to them. As mentioned earlier RCP 51/04 was filed against the writ petitioner, who is occupying one of the said three rooms. Against the other tenants RCP 52/04 and RCP 34/05 have been filed before the very same rent controller. The landlords moved interlocutory applications for joint trial in RCP 52/04 and RCP 34/05. Those applications were heard and dismissed by the Rent Controller by Ext.P3. The landlords' appealed. The appeal was allowed by Ext.P4 common order. The appellate authority ordered joint trial of not only RCP 52/04 and RCP 34/05 but also RCP 51/04 in which the writ petitioner herein is the counter petitioner. Petitioner points out that there was no petition in his RCP for joint trial. Therefore, he was unaware of the motion made by the WPC 22357/07 & RCR 213/07 2 landlord. Now behind his back, the applications of the landlord were allowed and his case was also ordered to be tried along with the other two cases. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P4. 2. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the violation of the principles of natural justice in ordering to club his case also along with the other two cases. Learned counsel submits that there are certain special facts pertaining to his case. The room occupied by him was demolished by the landlord while there was an interim injunction order against forceful eviction. Therefore, pursuant to another interim order of the Munsiff Court he reconstructed the room. Therefore, at present he is the owner of the room. So, in the rent control petition claiming eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 the petitioner has raised a preliminary objection regarding lack of title to the landlords. So, it is only proper that his case is tried separately. So, apart from the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he has got other WPC 22357/07 & RCR 213/07 3 substantial grounds also to urge against the joint trial. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the land lords. He does not dispute that there was no petition for joint trial in RCP 51/00. 4. We feel that the merits of the contentions of the petitioner is a matter to be considered by the court concerned. But we are of the view that the impugned order so far as it clubs RCP 51/04 also for trial along with other cases cannot be sustained. Therefore, the order to that extent is set aside. The landlord will be free to move the rent controller by filing an application in RCP 51/04 for clubbing that case also along with other two cases which are already stated to be listed for trial. If such an application is filed, needless to say the rent controller will pass appropriate orders on it in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. R.C.R.213/07 In view of the judgment in W.P(C) 22357/07 it is ordered that the direction contained in the order impugned in this revision regarding joint trial will apply only to WPC 22357/07 & RCR 213/07 4 RCP 52/04 and RCP 34/05. With the above direction the R.C.R is disposed of. It is made clear that the impugned order to the extent it directs joint trial of RCP 52/04 and RCP 34/05 does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by us under Section 20 of the Act. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge jj K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO: ----------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Dated: