IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RCRev..No. 448 of 2011() ------------------------ RCA.136/2011 of RENT CONTROL APPELALTE AUTHORITY , KOZHIKODE RCP.88/2000 of RENT CONTROL COURT, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS(RESPONDENTS 2,3,&7 IN I.A. AND IN APPEAL ---------------------------------------- 1. T.P.SACHINDRA BABU, S/O.T.P.KRISHNAN, QUALITY TRADERS, BIG BAZAR, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. P.SASIDHARAN, S/O.K.P.MADHAVAN, SRUTHI, NAMBI PARAMBA, PALAKKAD ROAD, PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE. 3. P.VENUGOPAL, S/O.K.P.MADHAVAN, ACHUTHAN, LANCE NAIK SREEJITH ROAD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6,8 AND 9 IN I.A. AND APPEAL/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6, 8 & 9 IN RCP --------------- 1. P.REMADEVI, W/O.MOHANDAS RADHAKRISHNAN, REMYA, KOZHIPURAM COMPOUND, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SALINI RAVINDRAN, D/O.K.P.MADHAVAN, ACHUTHAM, LANCE NAIK SREEJITH ROAD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE NOW RESIDING AT 302 A BLOCK, SOUTH RIDGE APARTMENT, BEHIND JEKUR AERODROME, JAKUR, BANGALORE-64. 3. SUHASINI SIVANANDAN, D/O.K.P.MADHAVAN, ACHUTHAM, LANCE NAIK SREEJITH ROAD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE NOW RESIDING AT D209, MAVILLA, IA HOUSING SOCIETY, MAYUR VIHAR, PHASE I, NEW DELHI-21. 4. P.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.K.P.MADHAVAN, ACHUTHAM, LANCE NAIK SREEJITH ROAD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE NOW RESIDING AT NARAYANEEYAM, NEAR MUTHAPPAN TEMPLE, OTTATHENGU, P.O.ALAVIL, KANNUR. 5. P.SUHAS, S/O.K.P.MADHAVAN, ACHUTHAM, LANCE NAIK SREEJITH ROAD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE NOW RESIDING AT 1A, DAWN APARTMENT, KARAT ROAD, WEST P.O., NADAKKAVU, CALICUT. 6. P.SUNIL, S/O.K.P.MADHAVAN, ACHUTHAM, LANCE NAIK SREEJITH ROAD, WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE NOW RESIDING AT RAM AVENUE, NEAR SBT STAFF COLONY, PATTERI CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE-7. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K. HARILAL, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No. 448 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of November, 2011 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The alleged sub lessee and the legal heirs of the deceased tenant are the revision petitioners. They impugn in this revision the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing the application filed by the first respondent landlady seeking amendment of the Rent Control Petition. In this revision that order is challenged on various grounds and particularly, the following (i) the amendment sought for by the first respondent was beyond the scope of the remand order passed by this court in R.C.R. No.125/2004. (ii). The amendment enables the landlady to substitute the subject matter of the proceedings and in that way will cause prejudice to the revision petitioners. Thirdly, it is also urged that despite the amendment presently allowed, the Rent Control Petition continues to be defective as the legal heirs of Sri.K.P.Madhavan, the deceased tenant, have R.C.R.No.448/2011 2 not been brought on record as additional respondents in the rent control petition. This situation, it is urged, is likely to result in a situation where the legal heirs of the deceased tenant will not get the benefit of raising additional pleadings in the rent control petition with reference to the pleadings newly introduced by the landlady. 2. Sri. K.M.Firoz, learned counsel for the revision petitioners drew our attention to the remand order passed by this court in R.C.R. No.125/2004 and would argue that at best the above remand order has permitted the tenants to highlight the subsequent event of a room identical to the room, which is subject matter of the rent control petition, becoming available to the landlady. The learned counsel also submitted that amendment of the schedule portion of the rent control petition resulting in substitution of the pleadings was never permitted by this court. This will certainly cause prejudice to the revision petitioners. The counsel also submitted that the material defect of the legal heirs of Sri.K.P.Madhavan, the deceased tenant, not being brought on the array of parties has to be remedied. 3. We have considered the submissions of Mr.Firoz. We R.C.R.No.448/2011 3 have gone through the impugned order as well as the order of this court in R.C.R. No.125/2004. We remind ourselves of the limits of our present jurisdiction under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965. We are not much impressed by the grounds raised by the petitioners against the amendment presently allowed by the Appellate Authority. This court under its order in R.C.R. No.125/2004 had permitted the revision petitioners to bring to the notice of the Rent Control Appellate Authority the subsequent event of another building becoming available to the landlady. We find that the amendment sought for by the landlady was to offer explanations or special reasons for insisting on getting possession of the subject building despite the subsequent event of some other building becoming available. Coming to the argument that the amendment presently allowed will enable the landlady to substitute the subject matter of the rent control petition, we are of the view that the above argument has only superficial attractiveness. As regards the identity of the building, from where the revision petitioners are sought to be evicted, there is no dispute between the parties. By seeking incorporation of details such as specifications, R.C.R.No.448/2011 4 measurements, etc. of the building, the landlady was only trying to remove the possibilities of unnecessary obstructions at the time of execution. Regarding the last submission of Mr.Firoz that even now the legal heirs of the deceased tenant Madhavan have not been brought on record as additional respondents in the rent control petition, we direct the Appellate Authority to look into the same and do the needful for curing the above defect. Another reason for our disinclination to entertain this revision petition is that the impugned order is an interlocutory order. If the final judgment of the Appellate Authority comes to be against the revision petitioners, the revision petitioners can urge the grounds raised herein as grounds in the prospective revision petition which they may be filing against the final judgment of the Appellate Authority. The revision fails and is dismissed in limine. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K. HARILAL, JUDGE. dpk R.C.R.No.448/2011 5