JUDGMENT

Ajithkumar, J.

The petitioner is the respondent in R.C.P.No.30 of 2017 pending before the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Thalassery. It was filed by the respondents seeking eviction under Section 11(3) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The rent control petition is now ripe for trial. The petitioner has filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to stay all further proceedings in the rent control petition till the disposal of R.F.A.No.583 of 2015 pending before this Court. The further relief prayed for is to set aside Ext.P7 order by which the Rent Control Court dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2022 in R.C.P.No.30 of 2017 filed by the petitioner seeking a similar relief.

2. On 14.02.2022, this petition was admitted and notice was ordered to be served on the respondents, through their counsel appearing in the Rent Control Court, Thalassery, where R.C.P.No.30 of 2017 is pending. A report from the Rent Control Court with respect to the status of I.A.No.1 of 2022 was called for and as per the report dated 15.02.2022 the Rent Control Court reported that I.A.No.1 of 2022 was already dismissed and the rent control petition was posted for trial to

02.03.2022.

3. Pursuant to notice, the respondents entered appearance through their counsel. On 02.03.2022, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking to amend the original petition, which was allowed. The petitioner has placed on record the amended original petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. R.C.P.No.30 of 2017 was filed by the respondents claiming that they are the landlords and seeking eviction of the petitioner under Section 11(3) of the Act on the ground that the 3rd respondent, who remains jobless, wanted to start a tailoring shop in the petition schedule building. Also, eviction under Section 11(4)(ii) of the Act was sought on the ground that the petitioner had removed one of the walls in the building, without consent or knowledge of the respondents and by such removal, the value and utility of the building was adversely affected.

6. Ext.P5 is the counter statement filed by the petitioner in R.C.P.No.30 of 2017. He took up a contention that an agreement for sale was entered into between the petitioner and the predecessor of the respondents on 05.10.2010, as per which the petition schedule building along with the appurtenant land was agreed to be sold for a sale consideration of Rs.2,60,000/- to the petitioner. A suit as O.S.No.283 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner before the Sub Court, Kannur for specific performance of that contract. That suit was decreed directing return of the advance money of RS.1,10,000/- paid by the petitioner, but the relief of specific performance of the contract was rejected. The petitioner therefore filed an appeal before this court, which is pending consideration. Among the other contentions, the petitioner, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, took a stance that he was not the tenant amenable to proceedings under Section 11 of the Act. I.A.No.1 of 2022 was filed in R.C.P.No.30 of 2017, in the above factual situation, seeking to keep in abeyance all further proceedings in the R.C.P., till the disposal of the appeal pending before this Court as R.F.A.No.583 of 2015.

7. Ext. P1 is a copy of the appeal memorandum in R.F.A.No.583 of 2015 pending consideration of this Court. The subject matter of the agreement for sale in question is the petition schedule building. In O.S.No.283 of 2012, the learned Sub Judge considered the rival contentions in detail and concluded that the plaintiff, who is the petitioner herein, was not entitled to get a decree of specific performance. A copy of the agreement is Ext.P2 and of the judgment is Ext.P3.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in R.F.A.No.583 of 2015, the essential