IMPORTANT POINTS :
• The petitioners/landlords are allowed to amend the rent control petitions, in accordance with Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and thereafter the parties are allowed to adduce further evidence.
• Under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which was enacted by the Governor General in Council upon registration of a society is entitled to sue and can be sued in the name of its President, Secretary etc., as shall be determined by its rules or by its governing body.

K. HARILAL, J.

1. The question that emerges for consideration in these revision petitions is, can a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 sue or be sued in its own name? The revision petitioner is the tenant, who is confronting with an order of eviction passed in five rent control petitions and all the rent control petitions were filed, seeking an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(iii) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965(hereinafter referred to as the Act). The 1st respondent/1st petitioner/landlord is a co-operative society by name Marakasutharbiyathil Islamiya and the 2nd respondent/2nd petitioner/ landlord is Marakasutharbiyathil Islamiya, represented by the general secretary. The parties are referred to as in the Rent Control Petitions. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner/landlord is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the 2nd petitioner is the said society, represented by its General Secretary.

2. The respondent/tenant contended that the rent control petitions itself are not maintainable, as the society was not represented, as contemplated under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Though the said issue was raised as a preliminary issue, the parties went on to trial and both parties adduced evidence. After considering the evidence on record, the said preliminary issue was considered at first, and the Rent Control Court found that the rent control petitions are not maintainable, as the society was not represented in the rent control petitions, as contemplated under Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/landlords preferred appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority, after considering the contentions raised in the appeal, reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court and allowed the appeals, on a finding that the society, by name, Marakasutharbiyathil Islamiya is properly represented in the rent control petitions and the rent control petitions are maintainable. Thus, the divergent findings on the issue, whether the society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 can sue or be sued in its own name, have come up in these revisions before us.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/tenant cited the decision, Illachi Devi (D) by LRs. and Others vs. Jain Society, AIR 2003 SC 3397, to canvas the point that society cannot sue or be sued in its own name and the society can sue or be sued in the name of President, Chairman or Principal Secretary or the Trustees thereof only.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioners/landlords relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College, Delhi vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1962 SC 458, to canvas the point that the society can sue or be sued in its own name. The learned counsel further invited our attention to Section 116 of the Act and contended that, where the General Secretary is properly authorised to file a rent control petition, the rent control petition is maintainable?

7. In view of the arguments at the Bar, we find that the question in controversy in these rent co. - Court in Illachi Devi's case (supra) and Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic and Unani Tibia College's case (supra).

8. It is not disputed that the 1st petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is discernible from the impugned judgment that originally in the cause title of the rent control petitions, there was only one petitioner and that was K.T. Kunjutty Haji, General Secretary, Markasutharbiyathil Islamiya, Athavanad. The respondent/tenant raised a contention that the petitioners were not authorised by Markasutharbiyathil Sangam to file the rent control petitions. So, the rent control peti