IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24871 of 2008(J) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.1693/08 IN RCP. NO.6/08 DT.14/07/08 OF ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD. ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- NOORANI VEDA DHARMA PADASALA, NOORANI VILLAGE, PIRIYRAI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TOWN, REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE N.S. NEELAKANTA IYER. BY ADV. SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. S.KRISHNA PRASAD, DOOR NO.15/155, COIMBATORE ROAD, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD TOWN. 2. M/S. VACCO, DOOR NO.15/161 (UPSTAIRS) COIMBATORE ROAD, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD TOWN. 3. GOPI, PROPRIETOR, AKM JEWELLERY, DOOR NO. 15/157,COIMBATORE ROAD, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD TOWN. 4. DR. P.A. KURIAN, HOMEOPATHI PRACTITIONER DOOR NO.15/156, COIMBATORE ROAD, SULTANPET, PALAKKAD TOWN. ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.24871 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J It appears to us that the petitioner/landlord is voicing a genuine grievance. His grievance is that an application for joint trial filed before the Rent Control Court seeking consolidation of four Rent Control Petitions filed in respect of four different portions of a larger building seeking eviction invoking substantially the same grounds, was dismissed by the Rent Control Court by passing a one sentence order. We would have been inclined to grant relief finally had it not been submitted by Sri.D.Krishna Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondents that application for joint W. P. C. No.24871 of 2008 -2- trial was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Sri.Krishna Prasad submitted that his client who is the third respondent in the Writ Petition is not a party to Ext.P2 impugned order. On going through Ext.P2, it is seen that it is only the first respondent in the Writ Petition who was the respondent in RCP.6/08 who was made a party to the joint trial application. We feel that it is necessary that the landlord should implead the tenants in all the four applications as parties to the joint trial application or should file separate joint trial applications in all the four Rent Control Petitions and see that all the applications are considered together and decided by the Rent Control Court. We, therefore, are inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition permitting the petitioner/landlord either to file a fresh joint trial application in which tenants in all the four RCPs are W. P. C. No.24871 of 2008 -3- made parties or to file separate joint trial applications in all the four Rent Control Petitions. Once fresh joint trial application or applications are filed by the writ petitioner, the learned Rent Control Court will ensure that an early decision is taken on those applications in accordance with law. It is made clear that Ext.P2 will not be a bar for any prospective joint trial applications. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/- W. P. C. No.24871 of 2008 -4- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. P. C. No.24871 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J No representation for the petitioner today also. The Writ Petition is dismissed for default. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-