K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Can a landlord unite different causes of actions against different tenants in a single Rent Control Petition in the event of which such a petition will be bad for misjoinder of causes of actions or misjoinder of parties due to multifarious ness, is the question that has come up for consideration in these cases.

2. A Division Bench of this Court in C.R.P.Nos.714 of 1992 and 573 of 1993, to which one of us (K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.) was a party has taken the view that rent control legislation does not contemplate a single application against separate tenants holding separate lease arrangements. However it was opined that Rent Control Court can order consolidation of such applications for the purpose of collecting evidence if the Court deems it expedient to do so either because common questions are involved in all of them or on account of any other reason. Another Division Bench of this Court consisting of P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. (as he then was) has considered this question in Sulthan v. Mohanan (2000 (3) KLT 338) and have taken the view that there cannot be any objection to a single petition being maintained for eviction if the claim is for reconstruction of the entire structure. When the present Revision Petitions came up for consideration before a Division Bench, the Bench noticed the conflicting views expressed by the two Division Benches and the matter was placed before us for an authoritative pronouncement.

3. Landlord in this case, sought eviction of various tenants in occupation of distinct portions of the same building under Section 11 (2)(b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(v) of Act 2 of 1965. First counter petitioner is in occupation of T.C.No.38/679 on a monthly rent of Rs.36/-which was sublet to the second counter petitioner. T.C.No.38/680 was rented out to the fourth counter petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.10/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.25/-. Fourth petitioner is conducting barber shop with the help of the fifth counter petitioner, his son. Father of counter petitioners 6, 8, 9 and 11 and husband of the 7th counter petitioner were occupying T.C.Nos.38/681 and 38/682 on a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. After the death of their father, 6th counter petitioner is conducting business and counter petitioners 6 to 9 are assisting him.

4. Landlady filed a single petition for eviction of the tenants who are in occupation of the distinct portions of the same structure. Contention was raised before the Rent Control Court that a single petition against all the tenants is not maintainable and there would be misjoinder of causes of actions. Rent Control Court held that since the scheduled building in its entirety is a single structure consisting of different shop rooms having different tenants in occupation of the different portions causes of actions can be united in one petition and there is no misjoinder of causes of actions. Rent Control Court therefore ordered eviction under Sections.11(2)(b) and 11(4)(iv) of the Act as against counter petitioners 1, 4, 6 to 9 and 11. Petition was allowed under Section 11(4)(i) as against counter petitioners 1, 3 and 6 to 9 and 11 to 13. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Court counter petitioners preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority. No specific ground as against the maintainability of the petition was raised before the Appellate Authority and therefore it did not examine that question. Appellate Authority dismissed both the appeals. Aggrieved by the said judgment, matter has been taken before this Court in C.R.P.No.1748 of 2001 and C.R.P.No.2222 of 2001. The question of maintainability of a single petition was also taken up alleging misjoinder of causes of actions.

5. In S.M. Gopalakrishna Chetty v. Ganeshan (AIR 1975 SC 1750) the Apex Court examined the question as to whether landlord who is the holder of the life interest in the property is entitled to evict the tenants under S.14 (1)(b) of the Act on the ground that the building is bo