Radhakrishnan, J.

The legality of the clubbing of all the rent control appeals by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in a case where joint trial was refused by the Rent Control Court is the moot question that has come up for consideration in this case.

2. Landlord preferred three rent control petitions namely, R.C.P.Nos.61, 62 and 63 of 1992 in respect of different tenants. Landlord filed the application for joint trial before the Rent Control Court and the same was refused and all the three rent control petitions were tried independently and evidence adduced separately. Rent Control Court dismissed all the petitions filed by the landlord under Section 11 (3) of Act 2 of 1965. Landlord preferred three appeals before the Appellate Authority. Expressing grave concern over the Rent Control Court in not conducting a joint trial Appellate Authority clubbed all the appeals together and disposed of all the appeals by a common Judgment. Appellate Authority has minuted that all the counsel had agreed for clubbing of all the appeals.

3. Sri. P.B. Krishnan, counsel for the petitioners submitted that Appellate Authority has committed an error in drawing inference from the evidence adduced in one case to determine another. Counsel submitted that the evidence adduced in R.C.P.No.62 of 1992 was applied to decide R.C.P.No.61 of 1992 causing prejudice to the petitioner. Ext.C1 in R.C.P.No.62 of 1992 is the commissioner report dated 19.7.1996 and Ext.C2 is the plan. Commissioner who submitted the report in that case was examined as P.W.3. Tenant in R.C.P.No.61 of 1992 had no opportunity to cross-examine the commissioner on Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2 plan. Further, it is also stated that reliance was placed on Exts.R1(a) to R1(f) marked in R.C.P.No.63 of 1992 to decide the fate of other cases. Counsel submitted that in a case where Rent Control Court had found that there was no justification in holding a joint trial and that all the cases were tried independently on the basis of the evidence adduced in each case, the Appellate Authority was not justified in clubbing all the appeals together after finding fault with the Rent Control Court.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondent landlord on the other hand contended that Appellate Authority has got the jurisdiction to club all the appeals together and hear them. Further counsel submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the tenants by hearing all the appeals together. Counsel submitted that Appellate Authority has clubbed all the cases together as agreed to by all the counsel. Counsel submitted that if all the appeals were heard separately considerable judicial time would be wasted and it would only lead to protracting the proceedings. Consequently counsel submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

5. We find it difficult to accept the contention of the respondent landlord. Landlord has preferred petition for joint trial. Rent Control Court rejected the prayer and found that all the cases have to be tried independently. If any of the parties has got any grievance they should have challenged the said order. Appellate Authority has now found fault with the order of the Rent Control Court in not clubbing the cases together. Appellate Authority then clubbed all the appeals together and appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties in one case to decide another.

6. Appellate Authority in our view was also not justified in drawing inference from the evidence adduced in this case to decide another. In the instant case, Appellate Authority has placed reliance on Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2 plan in R.C.P.No.62 of 1992 to gather an impression about the lie of the tenanted premises. The person who has submitted Ext.C1 report was examined in R.C.P.No.61 of 2002 as P.W.3. Tenant in R.C.P.No.62 of 2002 had no opportunity to cross examine the commissioner since that rent control petition was heard and tried separately.

7. Landlord in all the cases is the same. T