IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 384 of 2010() ------------------------ RCA.39/2006 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHROITY, THRISSUR RCP.79/2004 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER /RESPONENT NO.1 IN R.C.A./REPONDENT NO.1 IN I.A. ------------------------------ M/S.SAMPANNA KURIES (P)LTD KUTTANCHERY BUILDING,HIGH ROAD,THRISSUR REP.BY ITS PRESENT CHAIRMAN, C.A.FRANCIS BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 2 IN RCA/PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.2 IN I.A.: --------------- 1. ROSY ANTONY, W/O.ALAPPAT ANTONY & D/O.KUTTANCHERY JOHN, MYLIPPADAM DESOMCHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK 2. MARCY CHERIYAN, W/O.ELEANJIKKAL CHERIAYAN & D/O.KUTTANCHERY JOHN RESIDING AT BENAT ROAD,THRISSUR TALUK 3. M/S.SONY HARILAL & COMPANY, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR, REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 384 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority allowing the rent control appeal preferred by the landladies against an order passed by the rent control court dismissing an application for joint trial of RCP Nos.79/2004 and 80/2004. The need projected in the two rent control petitions is for one Eby, who is the son of the second petitioner in the rent control petition. As regards the one room, it is claimed that Eby wants to start business in holy and religious articles. As regards the other room, the need projected is starting a business of sale of computer systems and electronics equipments. The landladies sought a joint trial on the reason that joint trial is necessary, as the need projected is of the same person and also as it is the same evidence which the landladies will have to adduce in both the rent control petitions. The application was opposed by the revision petitioner tenant. The learned rent control court dismissed the application by a RCR.No.384/2010 2 cryptic order observing that the court is of the opinion that “for a just decision of the cases separate trial is necessary”. 2. The appellate authority interfered with that order and allowed the joint trial application by the impugned judgment. According to the appellate authority, allowing the joint trial will be convenient to the landladies as well as to the Court, as it is almost the same evidence which is to be let in by the landladies in both the rent control petitions. The learned appellate authority would take the view that no legal prejudice is going to be occasioned to the tenant by ordering joint trial. In that view of the matter, the appeal and I.A. were allowed. 3. In this revision under section 20, various grounds have been raised and the learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged that the very rent control appeal preferred by the respondents before the appellate authority was not maintainable in law. According to the learned counsel, it was an interlocutory order of procedural nature, which was passed by the rent control court, against which an appeal under Section 18 does not lie. In spite of specific query by us, the learned counsel was unable to convince us of any prejudice which will be occasioned to the RCR.No.384/2010 3 revision petitioners by the order of joint trial presently allowed by the appellate authority. 4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. The submission that the regular rent control appeal under section 18 directed against the interlocutory order of procedural nature was not maintainable before the appellate authority is supported by judicial authority. But, we notice that such a contention was never raised before the appellate authority. We notice further that it is on considerations of justice and convenience of parties and court, that the learned appellate authority passed the impugned judgment. As rightly noticed by the appellate authority, an important issue in both the rent control petitions is bona fides of the need provided by one and the same person. It cannot be in dispute that the above need is to be manifested by the same set of evidence on the side of the landladies. This will be convenient to the landlords and the court also. As against this, the only question to be considered is whether any prejudice will be occasioned to the revision petitioner. We do not find any occasion for any prejudice being caused to the revision petitioner, as the learned RCR.No.384/2010 4 appellate authority has, in its order, incorporated sufficient safeguards by providing that it will be open to the revision petitioner to urge all contentions available to them by raising separate pleadings and by adducing separate evidence by substantiating the contentions raised in those pleadings. In short, we do not find any irregularity and illegality or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 about the impugned judgment. The revision petition fails and will stand dismissed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk