A.M. BABU, J.

1. We refer to the parties as they are shown in the revision petitions.

2. The 1st respondent filed R.C.P.17/2009 before the rent control court, Sulthan Bathery. It was filed seeking eviction of the 2nd respondent from three rooms in a building. Those rooms bear door Nos VI/522, VI/526 and VI/528. Eviction was sought under Sec.11(2)(b) and (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short the KBLR Act). The 2nd respondent contended that he was not the tenant of the room bearing door No.VI/522. He contended further that he was not aware as to who the tenant of the said room was. The 1st respondent filed I.A.204/2013 to implead the petitioner as a party to the rent control petition. The petitioner is the son of the 2nd respondent. It was alleged in I.A.204/2013 that the 2nd respondent, who was the tenant of the said room too, had inducted the petitioner in possession of it. Impleading of the petitioner was sought to avoid technical objections in the execution proceedings. The petitioner was given notice in the application to implead him. He did not respond to the notice. He was impleaded. The rent control court allowed the rent control petition an