IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (RC).No. 2115 of 2011(O) --------------------------- RCA.66/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONERS/THIRD PARTIES --------------------------------------------- 1. MYTHILI, W/O.PARANGODAN, AGED 72 YEARS, CHANAYIL HOUSE, EDAKKAD AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. PREMALATHA, W/O.SUENDRAN, AGED 34 YEARS, KONOTH HOUSE, NELLIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. USHA, W/O.BHARATHAN, AGED 34 YEARS, KONOTH HOUSE, NELLIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI.J.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------- 1. MANOHARAN, S/O.PARANGODAN, AGED 50 YEARS, EDAKKAD DESOM, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. SURAN, S/O.PARANGODAN, AGED 48 YEARS, EDAKKAD DESOM, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. DEVAN @ DEVADAS, S/O.PARANGODAN, AGED 43 YEARS, EDAKKAD DESOM, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. PRAKASAN, S/O.PARANGODAN, AGED 40 YEARS, EDAKKAD DESOM, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 5. RAJESH, S/O.PARANGODAN, AGED 37 YEARS, EDAKKAD DESOM, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 6. PADINHARE PEEDIKAKKEL UMMER, S/O.MOIDU HAJI, AGED 59 YEARS, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 7. DINESAN, S/O.PARANGODAN, AGED 38 YEARS, EDAKKAD DESOM, PUTHIYANGADI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 8. VINOD, S/O.NOT KNOWN, WORKER, NEW BHARAT MOTORS, WEST NADAKKAVU, KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------ O.P.(RC).No. 2115 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Bhavadasan,J. In this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge order dated 14/2/2011 in I.A. No.476/2010 in R.C.A. No.66/2009 whereby the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners seeking their impleadment in the appeal pending before the Appellate Court. 2. The original tenant died while petition was pending before the Rent Control Court. Some of his legal heirs were impleaded as additional respondents. 3. Before the Appellate Authority some of the other legal heirs, who were not impleaded in the Rent Control Petition, filed I.A. No.476/2010 seeking their impleadment as additional appellants 6 to 8 in the Rent Control appeal. The Appellate Authority found that there is substantial representation of the estate of the original tenant and there was no necessity to O.P.(RC).No.2115/2011 2 implead the petitioners before the said court as additional appellants. The Appellate Authority has adverted to the fact that there was no allegation of any fraud or collusion in the persons who sought to get impleaded had a different character. I.A. No.476/2010 was thereafter dismissed by the Appellate Authority. We do not find any error either factual or legal in the order passed by The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing the I.A. filed by the petitioners herein. Hence, we dismiss the original petition. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE dpk