The main legal point established is that under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, and the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Rent Control Court has jurisdiction to entertain a single petition for eviction of tenants with distinct and separate tenancies in the same building, especially when the landlord requires the building for bona fide reconstruction.

1. This Original Petition is filed by the first counter petitioner in R C.P No. 10 of 1981 pending before the Rent Controller's Court, Palai. St. Mary's Forane Church, Kuravilangad represented by its Kaikars the first respondent herein, has filed the above R.C.P. under S.11(3) and (4) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, 'the Act' for short, for eviction of the petitioner and respondents 2 to 9 herein. The Church has got a storied building with number of rooms. The petitioner and respondents 2 to 9 are tenants of separate rooms in the building. The petitioner has got in his possession four rooms. There is no controversy that the tenancies are independent tenancies and the tenants are in occupation of distinct portions of the building.

2. When the rent control petition had been filed, the petitioner and respondents 2 to 5 questioned the maintainability of the petition for eviction and the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petition on the ground that a single petition for eviction of tenants whose tenancies are separate, distinct and independent is not maintainable. The Rent Control Court, the 10th respondent herein has overruled that contention and has held that the petition is maintainable. Ext. PI is the order and that is questioned in this O. P.

3. The short ground that the petitioner takes up in this case is that the tenancy of the petitioner and each of respondents 2 to 9 are distinct and separate and a single petition to evict all the petitioners together is incompetent. The cause of action is different and the petition is therefore bad for misjoinder of parties. The petition is also bad for multifariousness. According to the petitioner, the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a single petition for eviction of different tenants.

4. The learned Rent Controller has relied on two decisions of this Court in C. R. P. No. 423 of 1981 and in C. R. P. Nos. 1129,1226 & 1252 of 1977. In the first of these cases, which had come up from an order for eviction against a number of tenants passed on a single petition, this court refused to interfere in revision when the question of lack of jurisdiction to entertain a single petition for eviction of different tenants was raised before it on the ground that the same had not been raised before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. The question was raised before the District Judge who refused to go into it for the reason that it was not raised in the court below. It was pointed out by this court that if objection had been raised before the trial court, and upheld, the landlord would have filed separate petitions much earlier. It was further said that the decision in C.R.P. No. 1129 of 1977 and connected cases had laid down that where a complaint like the present is raised, interference will not be proper unless a total failure of justice is established and such is not the case in the matter.

5. In the other decision of this court, viz., C.R.P. Nos. 1129,1226 and 1252 of 1977, the facts were these:

Two landlords brought a common petition for evicting 6 tenants who were in occupation of various rooms in one single building. The building consisted of 9 rooms of which 4 rooms were owned by one landlord and the other 4 rooms by another landlord, The petition was on the basis that the building was over 50 years old and was in a dilapidated condition and therefore it needed reconstruction. The Rent Control Court allowed the eviction. The tenants filed unsuccessful appeals and revisions before the appellate authority and the revisional court. When the matter came up before this court, on the plea that the eviction petition was bad for misjoinder of persons who were holding under separate engagements had been impleaded in one single petition, this court said:

"It is true that the rental arrangements between the lardlords and the several tenants were separate and independent but it cannot be denied that if separate petitions were brou