K.T. Sankaran, J.

The question involved in this O.P.(R.C.) is whether the Rent Control Court exercising jurisdiction under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has jurisdiction to add an additional respondent in the Rent Control Petition on the application of the petitioner/landlord. In the present case, it is stated in the Rent Control Petition that the landlord (Jayaprakash) and his friend Lalan jointly purchased the undivided ownership in a property having an extent of 4,372 cents consisting of a two storied building in which several rooms are there. It is also stated in the Rent Control Petition that the landlord also purchased undivided rights and absolute rights in certain adjoining rooms. Similarly, Lalan also purchased some of the rooms and undivided interest in the adjoining lands. In the Rent Control Petition, it is also stated that the landlord and Lalan have bona fide need to conduct a super market in the building. Some of the tenants did not agree to vacate. This necessitated the filing of the Rent Control Petitions to evict the tenants who did not agree to vacate. The tenant in R.C.P. No. 118 of 2009 is K. Mohan, the petitioner in the present O.P.(R.C).

2. According to the landlord, K. Mohan is the tenant of the petition schedule building. In the counter statement filed by Mohan, he stated thus:

8. The averment in paragraph 4 of the Rent Control Petition that respondent is the building tenant in occupation of the ground floor building bearing door No. 34/2433 is incorrect and false.

* * * *

12...In this context, this respondent reiterates that he is not a tenant in the petition schedule room under the petitioner.

3. A Commissioner was appointed to inspect the petition schedule building. The Commissioner stated in the report that K. Mohan is the tenant of the petition schedule building and he is conducting a textile shop therein. The report further shows that the tenant made a request to the Commissioner to note the dimensions of the petition schedule room. Though an objection was filed to the Commissioner's Report, Mohan did not deny the statement that he was present at the time of inspection by the Commissioner or the statement that he wanted the Commissioner to note certain details. However, in paragraph 3 of the objection, Mohan stated thus:

The statement of the Advocate Commissioner in paragraph 4 of his report that one K. Mohan is in occupation of door No. 34/2423 of the Corporation of Kochi is not correct and is made only by perusing the petition in R.C.P. No. 118 of 2009.

4. It is submitted that the Rent Control Court passed an order for joint trial of the connected Rent Control Petitions including R.C.P. No. 118 of 2009. The trial was commenced and the landlord was examined. Thereafter, the landlord filed I.A. No. 5720 of 2012 to implead Sreekala, A.S., wife of Mohan as additional second respondent in the Rent Control Petition. In the affidavit accompanying the petition, it was stated thus:

In the objection, though he stated that he is not the tenant of the petition schedule premises, he never disclosed the fact that his wife is the tenant until he cross-examined me during trial. Only during the cross-examination, he suggested that his wife Sreekala, A.S. is the tenant of the petition schedule premises.

5. In the affidavit, it was stated that the landlord apprehends obstruction by Sreekala, the wife of Mohan at the time of delivery of the building in execution. It was also stated in the affidavit that the application for impleading was filed accepting the contention put forward by Mohan that his wife is the tenant of the petition schedule building.

6. I.A. No. 5720 of 2012 was opposed by Mohan. It was contended in the objection thus:

The averment in paragraph 2 of the affidavit to the effect that 1 did not disclose as to who is the real tenant of the petition schedule room till I cross-examined the petitioner cannot be sustained as a ground for allowing th