IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 R.C.Rev..No. 18 of 2008 ----------------------- ( RCA.47/2007 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR (IA 10819/06 IN RCP.163/1999 of RENT CONTROL COURT,THRISSUR) REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN I.A/RESPONDENTS IN RCP. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PAUL C.A., S/O.CHANDY ANTHONY, ANCHANGADI EAST FORT, THRISSUR - 5. 2. JOLLY C.A., S/O.CHANDY ANTHONY, ANCHANGADI EAST FORT, THRISSUR - 5. 3. HELSON C.A., S/O.CHANDY ANTHONY, ANCHANGADI EAST FORT, THRISSUR - 5. 4. M/S.CHANDY'S JEWELLERY, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR - 1. REPRESENTED BY - IST RESPONDENT. 5. MARIAKUTTY JASHEEN, W/O.LATE JASHEEN, ANCHANGADI EAST FORT, THRISSUR - 5. 6. NEENA, D/O.LATE JASHEEN, ANCHANGADI EAST FORT, THRISSUR - 5. 7. ANTONY JASHEEN, S/O.LATE JASHEEN, ANCHANGADI EAST FORT, THRISSUR - 5. BY ADV. SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.) ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN I.A.- PETITIONER IN RCP ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., HEAD OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JOHN,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BANK THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, ALONG WITH RCR.NO.19 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO. 133 OF 2008 IN R.C.R.NO. 18 OF 2008 DISMISSED. 15.01.2008 SD/- K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ................................................................................... R.C.R. Nos. 18 & 19 OF 2008 ................................................................................... Dated this the 15th January , 2008 O R D E R Balakrishnan Nair, J: The tenants in R.C.P.No. 163 of 1999 and 84 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur raised preliminary objections before the said court contending that the above Rent Control Petitions do not disclose any cause of action and therefore they are liable to be rejected at the threshold itself under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Rent Control Court took the view that the two points raised in the Interlocutory Applications that petitions at the instance of the respondent/bank will not lie under sections 11 (7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control )Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), are matters to be tried as points/issues in the Rent Control Petitions and that they cannot be decided as preliminary issues. The Rent Control Court has also taken note of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 17986 of 2004 and R.C.R.No. 429 of 2004 while taking the above view. In the light of the said view taken, the Rent Control Court dismissed the Interlocutory Applications claiming rejection of the Rent Control Petitions at the threshold. The tenants appealed by filing R.C.A.Nos.7 and 47 of 2007. Both the appeals were heard together and dismissed holding that the Interlocutory Applications are filed without any bonafides . It was also held that filing of those R.C.R. Nos. 18 & 19 OF 2008 2 applications is an abuse of process of the court. The aggrieved appellants/tenants have filed these Rent Control Revisions. 2. The Rent Control Petitions were filed in 1999. The respondent, landlord sought eviction under sections 11(7) and 11(8) of the Act . According to the tenants, the landlord/respondent herein, not being a public institution, cannot invoke the said provisions for eviction of the tenants . Secondly, it was contended that the benefit of Section 11(8) of the Act, enabling to seek eviction for additional accommodation for the landlord is available only to natural persons and not to a legal person like the landlord, which is a private sector bank. The above contentions were considered by this Court in the aforementioned Writ Petition and Rent Control Revision. This Court held that those points are to be decided after taking evidence. It was also held that even assuming that petition under section 11(7) of the Act will not lie , ground under section 11(8) has to be gone into. We notice that in Writ Petition (C) No. 17986 of 2004 which arises from a connected R.C.P., this Court held as follows: “This is a misconceived writ petition filed by the tenants in a case pending before the Rent Controller with a view to prolong the proceedings. An application has been filed by the landlord seeking ejectment of the petitioners from the demised premises. The pleadings are complete and the issues have been framed. It was at that stage that the petitioners filed an additional counter affidavit supported by an application to place the same on the record. They also filed another petition under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer that the ejectment petition R.C.R. Nos. 18 & 19 OF 2008 3 against them be dismissed at the threshold without going into the merits of the case. Their grievance is that the Rent Controller has not passed any orders on the applications filed by them. We are sure that the contentions sought to be raised by the petitioners would be considered by the Rent Controller at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere at this stage. As already observed the tenants are only interested in delaying the proceedings. We are not inclined to interfere. Dismissed. “ 3. In R.C.R.No. 429 of 2004, which arises from a connected R.C.P., this Court held, as follows: “Respondent bank filed a petition for eviction under section11(7) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). A preliminary objection was raised by the tenant stating that the ground under section11 (7) of the Act will not lie. The rent controller in I.A.No. 4177 of 2004 observed that the same issue was decided earlier in another case, and therefore, there is no need to consider the point as a preliminary issue. In appeal, the appellate authority found that the matter can be decided at the time of evidence. Whether the petitioner's institution is a public institution or not also requires evidence. Further, even if section 11(7) is not applicable, ground under section 11(8) also has to be gone into. Therefore, all the contentions can be raised and there should be specific issues regarding this point and the entire matter has to be decided by the rent control court. There is no need for stalling the entire issues as the landlord has taken grounds under R.C.R. Nos. 18 & 19 OF 2008 4 section11(8) also. The appellate authority only held that this matter can be considered at the time of final hearing. Without prejudice to the right of both parties in raising the contentions, including this point, before the rent controller at the time of final hearing, this R.C.R. is dismissed untrammeled by any of the observations in the preliminary order passed.” 4. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the aforesaid two Division Bench decisions of this Court quoted above. In the face of those decisions, the rent controller or the appellate authority could not have taken a different view. Further, they have rightly held that the Rent Control Petitions could not be rejected at the threshold on the ground that they do not disclose any cause of action. In the result, the Rent Control Revisions are dismissed in limine. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk