Kerala High Court
Revision vs / on 19 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942
RCRev..No.426 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-08-2019 IN RCA 1/2017 OF
RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
- II), PALAKKAD.
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30-01-2017 IN RCP 5/2014 OF RENT
CONTROL COURT, PALAKKAD.
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS 1, 2 & 4 TO 7
/RESPONDENTS 2, 3 & 7 TO 10 :
1 MAMMUKOYA.T, S/O.KAMMATH, AGED 65,
KALIPARAMBIL, NELLUR DESOM, FAROOQ,
KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT
'RIYAS MANZIL', KAMBILINILAMPARAMBU,
NORTH BEYPORE POST, KOZHIKKODE-15.
2 ABDUL SALEEM,S/O.KAMMATH,AGED 55,
KALIPARAMBIL, NELLUR DESOM, FAROOQ,
KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.
3 AYISHABI,W/O. LATE KAMMATH, AGED 79,
KALIPARAMBIL, NELLUR DESOM,
FAROOQ, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.
4 E.M.SUBAIDA,D/O.KAMMATH,AGED 54,
PALLIKAL HOUSE, CHEMMAD, THIRUR ANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
5 SHAKKEELA,D/O.KAMMATH, AGED 45,
W/O.HASSAN, KERALA SOPS AND OIL LTD.,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKKODE.
R.C.R No.426 of 2019 2
6 FATHIMA, D/O.KAMMATH, AGED 44,
KALIPARAMBIL, NELLUR DESOM, FAROOQ,
KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & APPELLANT 3/
PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1, 4 & 5 :
1 PATHMA, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 47,
UPPATH VEEDU, MOOTHANTHARA, VADAKKANTHARA P.O.,
VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD TALUK - 678012.
2 BALAKRISHNAN,S/O.LATE MADHAVMOOTHAN,
AGED 58, UPPATH VEEDU, MOOTHANTHARA,
VADAKKANTHARA P.O., VADAKKANTHARA,
PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT - 678012.
3 MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, S/O.KAMMATH, AGED 52,
D.NO.1025, PALACE LODGE, G.B.ROAD,
KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK - 678001.
4 ABDUL LATHEEF,S/O.KAMMATH,AGED 52,
KALIPARAMBIL, NELLUR DESOM, FAROOQ,
KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT - 673631.
5 SAKEER HUSSAIN,S/O.KAMMATH, AGED 50,
KALIPARAMBIL, NELLUR DESOM, FAROOQ,
KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT - 673631.
R1 & R2 BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN &
SRI.R.MANIKANTAN.
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.C.R No.426 of 2019 3
A.HARIPRASAD & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J J.
--------------------------------------
R.C.R No.426 of 2019
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021
ORDER
A.Hariprasad, J
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and
contesting respondents. Despite the fact that the respondents 3 to 5 remain
unserved, we are of the view, considering the nature of contentions raised,
that their presence is not necessary for deciding the issue.
2. Revision petitioners are respondents 2, 3 and 7 to 10 in R.C.P
No.5 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court, Palakkad. First respondent
(contesting respondent) is the landlord/eviction petitioner. She filed a
petition under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1965 ( in short 'the Act') against the sole respondent in the lower court
proceedings (who is the third respondent in this revision petition). Since he
raised a contention that the tenancy was outstanding in the name of their
father, the first respondent (landlord) impleaded other respondents in the
lower court proceedings. While so, the eviction petition was dismissed for
default. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an application to restore the
dismissed eviction petition by impleading all the respondents. However,
notice was given to the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent
alone. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the first respondent that
his counter part was under an impression that all the respondents were
appearing through the counsel, who appeared for the third respondent.
The restoration petition was allowed and eviction petition was restored to
file. Thereafter, it came to light that notice was not given to other later
added respondents. Noticeing this defect, an application for reviewing the
restoration order was filed before the Rent Control Court. That application
was allowed in part and it was observed by the Rent Control Court that the
eviction petition should be deemed to have been restored only against the
contesting first respondent therein. This, in our view, is an incorrect
decision of the Rent Control Court. However, to avoid technicalities, the
landlord filed an application under Order XXIII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of
C.P.C to withdraw the rent control petition with a liberty to file another.
That application was allowed by the Rent Control Court. The revision
petitioners herein took up the matter before the Rent Control Appellate
Authority. The challenge raised by the revision petitioners before the Rent
Control Appellate Authority was not accepted by the Appellate Court and
therefore they have approached this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, we are of the
view that there is no mistake in the order passed by the Rent Control
Appellate Authority in this matter. In our view, even if Order XXIII Rule 1
and Section 151 C.P.C could not directly apply to a proceedings before the
Rent Control Court constituted under the Act, it is settled law that every
Tribunal has inherent power to regulate its own proceedings. What is
challenged before this Court on behalf of the revision petitioners is the
liberty granted to the landlord by the Rent Control Court to file another
proceedings against the revision petitioners. We are of the view that even if
no permission was granted by the Rent Control Court, the landlord is
entitled to file another eviction petition, because there was no finding
entered by the Rent Control Court on merits in the first proceedings. So
much so, Section 15 of the Act does not come in the way of the landlord.
Merely for the reason that a permission was granted by the Rent Control
Court to file another petition for eviction, it will not cause any prejudice to
the revision petitioners herein. Therefore, we find no merit in the revision
petition. Hence, it is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
A. HARIPRASAD,
JUDGE.
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
amk
