IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27923 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- RCP.36/2006 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT,PONNANI .................... PETITIONER(S): 1 ---------------- T.P.KUNJU, 41YEARS, S/O.THEKKEPARAMBIL BAVA, CHERUKADUNGADU PUTHUR, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FATHIMA, W/O.LATE KOALAKKATTU KUZHIMANNA MUAHMMED, R/AT.VATTAMKULAM, UDINIKKARA, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. 2. MUFASHID, S/O.LATE KOALAKKATTU KUZHIMANNA MUAHMMED, R/AT.VATTAMKULAM UDINIKKARA PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. 3. ABOOBACKER S/O.LATE KOALAKKATTU KUZHIMANNA MUAHMMED, R/AT.VATTAMKULAM, UDINIKKARA, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. 4. MUFASIR, S/O.LATE KOALAKKATTU KUZHIMANNA MUAHMMED, DO.DO. 5. NOOH SALIM, DO.DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).No.27923 of 2008-Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T J U D G M E N T RAMAN, J. This is a writ petition filed by a tenant who is the respondent in R.C.P.No.36/2006 pending trial before the Rent Control Court, Ponnani. 2. The landlord sought eviction of two buildings occupied by two tenants, one of whom is the petitioner herein. The grounds urged in the eviction petition filed i.e., R.C.P.Nos.36/2006 and 35/2006 are the same. Therefore, the landlord applied for joint trial which is allowed by the Rent Control Court, Ext.P5. The aggrieved petitioner has filed this writ petition inter alia contending that (1) there is no separate joint trial application in the two cases but only one joint application is filed in R.C.P.No.35/2006 and, (2) as regards the claim for benefit of proviso and other things by the tenant, it will depend upon evidence in each case, and hence, the court could not order joint trial. 3. We have heard the arguments. Admittedly, two petitions are filed. The grounds urged in both the petitions are same. W.P.(C).NO.27923/2008 -:2:- Therefore, we do not find anything wrong in allowing the landlord to give evidence in common. However, it is also equally true that the tenants may have separate defence and evidence, and therefore, we direct that even though the landlord may give evidence jointly, the right to adduce evidence will be available to both the tenants and their evidence will be recorded separately. With the above clarification we dispose of the writ petition. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms