The court emphasized the socially benevolent nature of the legislation intended to relieve the weakest sections of society and the importance of judicial discipline in pleadings. It also highlighted the need for a liberal approach towards the functioning of Tribunals and the importance of considering the rights and obligations of parties in determining the justification for joint trial.

Sukumaran, J.

Three shop rooms situate in Kayamkulam Municipality are in the occupation of tenants, Ebrahim Ismail Kunju and Abdul Sathar Kunju, as regards one, Philipose John as regards the other, and G. Krishnan Kavayyathu in respect of the third. Phasila Beevi claims to have purchased the rights over one building under a document of 1985. The landlady desired surrender of the buildings. The tenants were disinclined to surrender. The inevitable proceedings for eviction were initiated. The prominent ground projected for seeking eviction was a bona fide need, as envisaged in S.11(3). In R.C.P.7 of 1987, Phasila Beevi is the petitioner. It was averred by her that her husband was dependant on her, and was intending to have a wholesale business. The fact that her husband was without any employment or occupation and that he had the financial capacity for investment of funds in a business were also stated therein. The husband himself is the petitioner in R.CP. Nos. 6 and 9 of 1987. What is projected therein is his own need.

2. A petition I.A.No.344 of 1988 was filed for joint trial of R.CP. Nos. 6 and 9 of 1.987 along with R.C.P. 7 of 1987. It was contended that the evidence is common in all the three cases. The application was opposed. The parties in the three cases are different; the evidence to be adduced is also different; thee is no justification for joint trial; a joint trial will cause incalculable prejudice and damages to the tenants -so went the grounds of objection. The objections were over-ruled. The Rent Controller observed:

"the nature of evidence to be adduced in all the cases is one and the same. Considering the convenience of the parties as well as the court this petition is allowed."

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority also took the view that "the nature of the evidence to be adduced is one and the same." An additional reason was advanced by the Appellate Authority for sustaining the order of the Rent Controller directing joint trial:

"More over no prejudice will be caused to the appellants even if joint trial is allowed." The common order directing joint trial is attacked in the revision.

3. There is a larger contention urged on behalf of the revision petitioner. That is about the absence of an enumerated power of the Rent Controller in permitting joint trial of the cases. It does not appeal to. us. A narrower approach to the Act will prompt an authority to search the limited space of the statute and its scheme to find out an enabling power in relation to the joinder of trials. Such a narrow approach does not commend over itself for our acceptance. A recent decision of the Supreme Court in Mis. Babu Ram Ram Gopal v. Mathura Dass & Ors., JT 1990 (3) S.C. 25, has emphasised the message underlying this socially benevolent legislation intended to relieve the weakest sections of the Society. In this connection, we would like to express our reservations in relation to many of the wide observations as contained in Kochappan Pillai v. Chellappan, 1976 KLT 1. Some of the findings have already become inoperative by the supersession of the views by those of the Supreme Court. As for example, the view that the Rent 'Controller cannot take note of the subsequent events. This was held to be an unsustainable proposition by the Supreme Court. We may also refer to the discussion on furnishing negative evidence as yet another area which appears to us to be unsound in law. So too is the view expressed there on the question of pleadings. We are not unaware of a recent Division Bench decision in Narayani & Another v. District judge, 1991 (1) KLT 646 = 91 (1) KLJ 311 which has followed 1976 KLT 1 supra, and over-ruled Rangaier Sons (P) l.td. v. Rukhiyabi,1982 KLT 658. With great respect, it has to be pointed out that some of the larger aspects have been discussed at greater length by Viswanatha Iyer, J. in C.R.P. No. 841 of 1978 and by the decision in 1982 KLT 658 supra. This trend is seen adopted by Padmanabhan, J.