IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 29987 of 2009(P) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 50/08 IN RCP.48/2008 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. U.DEVI W/O.LATE PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR. 2. K.P.;LAKSHMI, D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR. 3. K.P.NARAYANAN, S/O.LATE PADMANABHAN UNNI, DIVYA, PATTURAIKKAL, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL SRI.THOMAS JAMES MUNDACKAL SMT.K.U.BINI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, SREELAKSHMI BAKERY, GROUND FLOOR, DIVYA COMPLEX, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. 2. SHAJAN JOSEPH K.R.,S/O.K.L.RAPHEAL, BHARAT GLASS OUSE, GROUND FLOOR, DIVYA COMPLEX, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 682019. 3. SHAINA SHAJAN, W/O. SHAJAN JOSEPH, BHARAT GLASS HOUSE, GROUND FLOOR, DIVYA COMPLEX, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. 4. MARY RAPHEAL, W/O. K.R.RAPHEAL, BHARAT GLASS HOUSE, GROUND FLOOR, DIVYA COMPLEX, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. 5. T.S.JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.SARATH CHANDRAN, SISWARYA TRAVELS, GROUND FLOOR, DIVYA COMPLEX, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. 6. M.S.MOHAMMED KUTTY, M.S. & S COMPANY, GROUND FLOOR DIVYA COMPLEX, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. 7. M/S.CLARION SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED GROUND FLOOR, DIVYA COMPLEX,VYTTILA, KOCHI-682019. 8. M/S.SHRAVALENT ENT CARE INDIA (P)LTD. SECOND FLOOR, DIVYA COMPLEX, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 682019. 9. VIKRAMAN PILLAI, INDIA INSULATIONS GROUND FLOOR DIVYA COMPLEX, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 682019. ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) FOR R1 SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) FOR R1 SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) FOR R1 SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM FOR R2-4 SRI.S.GOPINATHAN FOR R2-4 SRI.NELSON ABRAHAM FOR R2-4 , THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.29987 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 are Exts.P9 and P10 orders of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, declining the petitioners'/landlords' request for joint trial of seven Rent Control Petitions filed by them on the common ground of bona fide own occupation. Seven separate Rent Control Petitions were filed and joint trial applications were filed in each of them. The Rent Control Court allowed the petitions in five cases and thus joint trial of RCP Nos.49,51,55,56 & 57/2008 stands ordered presently. The court declined to order joint trial of RCP Nos.50/2008 & 48/2008 taking the view that consolidating those two cases along with other five will cause prejudice to the tenants. 2. In response to the notice issued by this court, the respondents in RCP Nos. 48/2008 & 50/2008 entered appearance before this court. As directed by us, the WPC.No.29987/2009 2 respondents in the other Rent Control Petitions also have been served through the Advocates appearing for them before the Rent Control Court. 3. We have heard the submissions of Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords and those of Sri.G.Balamuraleedharan, Sri.N.T.Nandakumar, Sri.Mathews V. Jacob, and Sri.Thomas James Mundackal appearing for the various respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents sought to sustain the impugned orders on the authority of the Judgment of this court in Ebrahim Ismail Kunju v. Phasila Beevi (1991 (1) KLT 861) and also the judgment of yet another Division Bench of this court in Sasidharan v. Saroja (2004(2) KLT 885). We notice the judgment of another Division Bench in Mohammed Salim v. Habeeb & Company (2002(2) KLT 93) and our own recent judgment in WPC No.28078/2009. According to us, there is no hard and fast rule that joint trial of several eviction petitions filed in respect of different portions of a larger structure can be allowed only when the common ground invoked is the ground of reconstruction under clause (iv)) of Sub section (4) of Section 11. The considerations for allowing the joint trial WPC.No.29987/2009 3 are avoidance of multiplication of evidence, duplicity of findings and the consideration of saving valuable judicial time. Of course, it has to be ensured that while ordering joint trial, prejudice is not caused to the tenants/respondents in any one of the RCPs. This court has observed in Ebrahim Ismail Kunju's case(cited supra) that the differentially in the defensive plea can be a good reason for declining joint trial of two RCPs filed invoking a common ground when different pleas are taken by the tenants. Even applying that principle, what we notice is that it is only in RCP No.48/2008 that a special plea, which can be said to be different in quality and content from the defence pleas taken in other Rent Control Petitions, is taken. In that case we notice that, as envisaged under the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 11, a contention of bona fide denial of landlord's title is taken. Sri.Chandran Pillai also referred to the decision in Aboobacker v. Girija(1995 (1) KLT 553) and submitted that, in order that a contention of denial of title raised by the tenant is favourably considered by the Rent Control Court and issue relegated to the Civil Court, there must be strong or atleast substantial grounds or sufficient materials in support of WPC.No.29987/2009 4 the plea and the chances of the plea being upheld by the Civil Court must be fairly on the higher side. According to him, documents already produced before the Rent Control Court in that RCP, will reveal that the plea has been taken without any bona fides. We do not think it will be proper that we decide the question whether the plea of denial of title taken by the tenant in RCP No.48/2008 is bona fide. However, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, we direct the Rent Control Court to take up the issue whether the denial of title raised by the tenant in RCP No.48/2008 is bona fide as a preliminary issue and take decision on that issue at the earliest and at any rate before the court closes for x' mas vacation. 4. As for the impugned orders, we set aside Exts.P9 and allow I.A. No.5298/2009. The court will commence trial on the basis of the order of joint trial passed in RCP Nos. 49,51,55,56 & 57/2008 and the present judgment only after the court re-opens after the X'mas vacation. If, in the meanwhile, the finding on the preliminary issue in RCP No.48/2008 comes to be in favour of the landlords, the court will reconsider the decision already taken to disallow the joint trial application in that case. Ext.P10 is WPC.No.29987/2009 5 therefore kept in abeyance till the court below decides the preliminary issue in RCP No.48/2008. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above . No costs. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk