IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 RCRev..No. 337 of 2007() ------------------------ (RCA.NO.20/06 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KASARAGOD RCP.NO.3/2005 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, HOSDURG) REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.MAMUNHI HAJI, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.ANDU, MANAGING PARTNER OF BEST INDIA HARDWARES, KOOLIKADA, AJANOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.CHITHARI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. M.MUHAMMED KUNHI HAJI, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.AHAMAD, MANAGING PARTNER OF BEST INDIA HARDWARES, V.P.ROAD, AJANOOR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, P.O.CHITHARI, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS -------------------------------------- 1. KUCHANILLATH MUHAMMAD, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABDULLA, RESIDING AT VENGACHERRIL, AJANOOR VILLAGE, P.O.CHITHARI, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. KUCHANILLATH ABBAS, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE ABDULLA, RESIDING AT VENGACHERRIL, AJANOOR VILLAGE, P.O.CHITHARI, HOSDURG TALUK. 3. KUCHANILLATH ABOOBACKER, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARANGADI, HOSDURG VILLAGE AND TALUK, P.O.KANHANGAD. ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE FOR R1 TO 3 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.C.R.No.337 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. The tenants are in revision against orders of eviction concurrently passed by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority against them on the ground of bonafide own occupation. It has been found by the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority on the basis of evidence which came on record that the need projected by the landlord for own occupation ie. for the purpose of carrying on business in the three rooms occupied by the revision petitioners/tenants is a bonafide one. It was also found on the basis of evidence that the tenants are not entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Sub Section 3 of Section 11. 2. Even though several grounds have been raised impugning the judgment of the appellate authority and the order of the Rent Control Court, Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would highlight only one point before us. The learned RCR.No.337/07 2 counsel argued that the Rent Control Petition which was filed as a single petition seeking eviction of two tenants governed by two separate tenancy is not maintainable in law in view of the mis- joinder of causes of action. Strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel on the judgment of the Full Bench of this court in Jamal v. Safia Beevi ( 2005(2) KLT 359 (F.B.). 3. The submissions of Sri.T.K.Vipindas were forcefully resisted by Sri.Jawahar Jose, learned counsel for the landlord. As directed by us, copies of the pleadings raised by the parties were supplied to us. We find that the contention that the rent control petition is bad for mis joinder of necessary parties is not specifically raised by the revision petitioners through their statement of objections. The Full Bench which decided the question whether the landlord can unite different causes of action in a single petition against various tenants in the same building or different buildings answered the reference in the following terms ; i) Landlord can unite several causes of action against single tenant, if he is occupying the same building in the event of RCR.No.337/07 3 which there will not be misjoinder of causes of actions and misjoinder of parties since tenant is single tenant occupying the same structure. ii) Landlord can prefer an application under S.11(4)(iv) against various tenants who are occupying distinct portions of the same structure since the tenants are jointly interested in the causes of action and the defence available to all the tenants would be by and large common and hence there will not be any misjoinder of causes of actions or misjoinder of parties. iii) Landlord cannot unite different causes of action in a single petition filed against various tenants whether they are in occupation of same building or different building. Such a petition would be bad for misjoinder of actions and misjoinder of parties. iv) Objection as to the misjoinder of causes of actions and misjoinder of parties should be taken at the earliest opportunity; failing which Court would not interfere unless it is shown that serious prejudice has been caused to the parties. RCR.No.337/07 4 v) Rent Control Court can consolidate the applications for eviction if there are similarity or identity of the matters in issue in the petitions which is to be left to the discretion of the Rent control Court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” 4. We are of the view that the revision petitioners not having raised the contention that the petition is bad for misjoinder of causes of action is not entitled at any stage even if it be at the stage of appeal to raise the above contention. More over we fail to see how any prejudice has been occasioned to the revision petitioner on account of the filing of a single petition by the landlord. Sri.Vipindas submitted that one of the rooms is a godown room while the other is a shop room. According to him, prejudice has been caused since the availability of godown room and availability of shop room could have been considered and answered differently by the courts below. We cannot agree . It is seen on a perusal of the statement of objections filed by the tenant that they who are partners and are carrying on the same business in the two rooms RCR.No.337/07 5 have taken the contention generally in respect of both the rooms. No prejudice according to us has been occasioned to the tenant by consolidation of the causes of action by the landlord. The RCR is liable to be dismissed and the same will stand dismissed. As his last submission, Sri.T.K.Vipindas sought for time till 31/03/2010 to surrender the petition schedule building. There is very stiff opposition to this request from Sri.Jawahar Jose. We feel that on considerations of indulgence and in view of the circumstances attending on this case, time can be granted till 31/03/2010 subject to the following conditions ; 1) Both the revision petitioners file an affidavit before the execution court undertaking to surrender the rooms in their possession peacefully to the respondent/landlord on or before 30-03-2010. 2) It shall also be undertaken through the same affidavit that they will discharge arrears of rent, if any and continue to pay the occupational charge at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month with effect from 01/08/2009 till they surrender the premises. Affidavit as RCR.No.337/07 6 directed shall be filed within three weeks from today and the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted by this judgment only if the affidavit is filed as directed above. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. RCR.No.337/07 7