This Transfer Petition seeks transfer of a petition for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 presently pending before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam, over to the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thrissur for the purpose of joint trial with a mortgage suit pending before that court. The petitioners are the respondents in the Rent Control Petition. Petitioners in the Rent Control Petition are the legal heirs of one Radhakrishnan who was the 7th defendant in the suit. The suit was for recovery of about Rs.15 lakhs allegedly advanced by the plaintiff-1st petitioner to the 10th defendant in the suit, a Trust by name Pallath Prabhakaran Master Memorial Trust. The Case of the plaintiff in the suit is that amounts were advanced to the defendants on the security of immovable properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, being equitably mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff. According to the petitioners, the building which is subject-matter of the R.C.P. is situated on one of the items of the plaint schedule property. The transfer of the R.C.P. is sought on the ground that unless the R.C.P. and the suit are tried jointly, there will be duplicity of findings and the plaint claim being much more than the rent allegedly due in respect of the building involved in the R.C.P., the plaintiff is entitled to have adjustment of the alleged rent arrears against the plaint claim. Annexure-B application, according to the petitioners, has already been filed in the suit seeking permission to make such adjustment.

2. Through a detailed counter-affidavit filed by the respondents it is contended that the principal contesting defendants in the suit who are really accountable for the liability which is subject-matter of the suit have not been made parties to the Transfer Petition. It is further contended that the building which is subject-matter of the R.C.P. belongs exclusively to the respondents and that the said building is not subject-matter of any mortgage in favour of the plaintiff in the suit. More seriously it is contended that the Thrissur Sub Court lacks in inherent jurisdiction to entertain the Rent Control Petition now pending before the Ernakulam Rent Control Court or for that matter any other rent control petition. The Ernakulam Rent Control Court alone has jurisdiction to decide Annexure-C Rent Control Petition. It is also contended that the real objective behind the filing of the Transfer Petition is to get away from the obligation of discharging the arrears of rent payable for the building and thereby to make the lives of the respondents, a hapless widow and her two minor children, all the more miserable.

3. I have heard the arguments of Sri. V.R.K. Kaimal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. A.K. Seshadri, learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused their rival pleadings and scanned all the materials placed on record.

4. Even though counsel on both sides addressed arguments regarding the facts obtaining in the case also, they gave thrust to the question as to whether the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Thrissur is competent to entertain Annexure-C Rent Control Petition. Mr. Seshadri based his arguments on statutory provisions such as Sections 3(1) and 11(1) of the Rent Control Act and Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Kaimal referred to various decisions including that of the Supreme Court in Gopalan v. Aboobacker (1995 (2) KLT 205) and G. Vijayalakshmi v. G. Ramachandra Sekhara Sastry (AIR 1981 SC 1143) and that of this Court in Kajaria Co. Ltd. v. Vimala Bai (1967 KLT 575) Kesavan v. Parameswaran Namboodiripad (1984 KLT 634), District Collector v. Kerala Varma (1959 KLT 1178) and Aley Antony v. Ouseph Chacko (2004 (2) KLT 867) so as to fortify his submissions. Mr. Seshadri would by way of reply submit that none of the decisions cited by Mr. Kaimal will justify the impossible position that the Subordinate Judge, Thrissur can be conferred with juri