DR.DILIP JOSEPH THOTTACHERY vs SABEENA LATHEEF - 2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45126

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1944 OP (RC) NO. 116 OF 2021 AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.07.2021 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2020 IN R.C.P.NO.11/2019 & R.C.P.NOS.12 TO 24 AND 27 TO 29 OF 2019 OF THE HONOURABLE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHANGANACHERRY PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
DR.DILIP JOSEPH THOTTACHERY, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.LATE DR.T.C.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.12/2486, THOTTACHERY HOUSE, HILTOP LANE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., PATTOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 011, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.PAUL THOMAS, AGED 51, S/O.LATE P.C.THOMAS, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, KOCHI-682 025, KERALA, INDIA.
BY ADVS.
GEORGE KURUVILLA(ALAPPUZHA)
JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR)
RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS IN R.C.PS 11 TO 24 AND 27 TO
29/2019:
1 SABEENA LATHEEF, AGED 47 YEARS W/O.LATHEEF, RESIDING AT LAKULATHU HOUSE, FATHIMAPURAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, PIN-686 102, PROPRIETOR, COTTONZ READY MADE SHOP, ROOM NO.XIII/1248., THOTTASSEERIL BUILDINGS, OPPOSITE KSRTC BUS STAND, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
2 T.A.SHAJI, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.ABDUL AZIZ, THOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 101, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, PROPRIETOR, ALEENA LUCKY CENTER, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
3 ANTO MATHEW, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.LATE MATHAI, RESIDING AT NADUVILE VEETTIL HOUSE, MUTTAR P.O., PIN-689 574, KUTTANADU TALUK, THE PROPERITOR, THOMSON MEDICALS, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
4 NARAYANA PAI, AGED 75 YEARS S/O.LAKSHMANA PAI, RESIDING AT INCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY EAST VILLAGE, VEZHAKKATTU BHAGAM, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., PROPRIETOR, NEW NAVEEN STORES, NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
5 BEIJU.P.C., AGED 45 YEARS S/O.P.K.CHELLAPPAN, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY EAST VILLAGE, RUBY NAGAR P.O., PIN-686 103 (LEGAL HEIR OF 5TH RESPONDENT - RCP NO.15/2019) PROPRIETOR, PKC STORES, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
6 P.H.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.SAITHU MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL FATHIMA MANZIL, NEAR ST.ANNS GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL, VAZHAPPILLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN-686
101, ROOM NO.XIII/1244, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
7 JACOB THOMAS @ SIBY, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.LATE P.C.THOMAS, RESIDING AT PUNNASSERY HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NAGAR P.O., PIN-686 106, CHETTIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, PROPRIETOR, VEGETABLE SHOP, ROOM NO.XIII/41, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
8 SURESH KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, VANDANATHU PUTHUPARAMBU HOUSE, CHEERANCHIRA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, PROPRIETOR, STYLES GENTS SALOON, ROOM NO.XIII/1249, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
9 CYRIAC THOMAS @ SAJI, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.LATE P.C.THOMAS, RESIDING AT PUNNASSERY HOUSE, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE NAGAR P.O., PIN-686 106, CHETTHIPUZHA VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, PROPRIETOR, VEGETABLE SHOP, ROOM NO.XIII/41, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
10 V.A.KMAJEED, AGED 65 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RESIDING AT NALUKANDATHIL HOUSE, NEELIMANGALAM, PERUMBAIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PERUMBAIKKADU P.O., PIN-686 016, PROPRIETOR, KARUNYA LUCKY CENTRE, ROOM NO.XIII/1243, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
11 S.NAIR, AGED 71 YEARS RESIDING NEAR TO THE AMBA AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, PERUNNA, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, PIN- 686 104, THE PROPRIETOR, ARCHANA DRESS CENTER, ROOM NO.XIII/1245, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
12 SUBINA.M.S., AGED 43 YEARS W/O.SHAJI, RESIDING AT THOTTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., PIN-686 101, PROPRIETOR, GLAZE, ROOM NO.XIII/1247, THOTTACHERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
13 RAJEEV, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.LAKSHMANAPAI, RESIDING AT INCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VAZHAPPILLY EAST VILLAGE, VAZHAPPALLY P.O., CHANGANCHERRY TALUK, PIN-686 102, PROPRIETOR, SK FOOT WEARS, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
14 LATHIF.K.U., AGED 56 YEARS S/O.UMMER, RESIDING AT LAKULATHU THAZHCHAYIL HOUSE, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, FATHIMAPURAM P.O., PIN-686
102, PROPRIETOR, APPA LOTTERY AGENCY, ROOM NO.XIII/43, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
15 P.D.THENMOZHI, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.P.S.DHANDAPANI, RESIDING AT KARINGADA HOUSE, WARD NO.XXXIV/54, NEAR SB COLLEGE, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., PIN-686 101, PROPRIETOR, SREE TEXTILES, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
16 SHAJEEB, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.P.M.ALI, PUNNILATHU HOUSE, PERUNNA EAST MURI, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, PROPRIETOR, NISARI MUSIC AND MOBILES, THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN-686 101.
17 MEERAN PILLAI, AGED 75 YEARS S/O.HAMEED, RESIDING AT PUTHUPARAMBIL FATHIMMA MANZIL, NEAR ST.ANNS GIRLS SCHOOL, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., PIN-686 101, PROPRIETOR, RAFFI FOOT WEARS, , THOTTASSERIL BUILDINGS, KAVALA, CHANGANACHERRY.
BY ADVS.
ALEX.M.SCARIA JINU JOSEPH THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)
M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY MATHEW DEVASSI KRISHNA DAS SARITHA THOMAS THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 28.03.2022, THE COURT ON 11.04.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Advocates:
['GEORGE KURUVILLAALAPPUZHA', '', 'JOHN NUMPELI JUNIOR', 'ALEX M SCARIA', '', 'KRISHNA DAS', 'SARITHA THOMAS', 'JINU JOSEPH', 'THOMAS ABRAHAM NILACKAPPILLIL', 'M P MADHAVANKUTTY']

JUDGMENT

Ajithkumar, J.

The common order dated 27.07.2021 of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Changanassery in Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2020 in each of R.C.O.P.Nos. 11 to 24 and 27 to 29 of 2019 is under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner filed those interlocutory applications seeking an order directing joint trial of all those rent control petitions. The petitioner is the common landlord. The respondents are the tenants in the respective petition schedule shop rooms. The rent control petitions were filed seeking eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. All the rooms form part of the same building. The grounds for eviction and also the defence of the respondents are similar. Therefore, the evidence to be let in all the cases would be identical. Pointing out those circumstances, the petitioner sought to order a joint trial.

3. The Rent Control Court dismissed the interlocutory applications, essentially for the reasons noted in paragraph Nos.25, 26 and 27 in the impugned order, which is extracted below:

“25. On perusal of the entire records, I find that, there is much force in the contention of the respondents that respondents in all the cases are different, and cross examination of the petitioner is to be done by all the 17 respondents and evidence is to be adduced by all the 17 respondents. Hence even if joint trial is conducted, it is having no effect at all as the contentions of each 17 respondents are to be considered differently.

26. In the said circumstances, I find that, joint trial of all the petitions will cause incalculable prejudice and damages to the respondents in this case. In the above said circumstances, joint trial of all these cases would embarrass and delay the trial of all the 17 cases. As the different tenants have different contentions, I find that, it is better to conduct separate trials of all the cases and not to have recourse to the exceptions provided for holding of joint trial. If the joint trial petition is allowed, the objections raised and the evidence adduced in the case will be adversely affected and it will cause prejudice to the respondents. For all the above said reasons, I find that, this petition as to joint trial is not allowable.

27 Further I find that, the respondents in RCOP No.

11/2019. RCOP No.12/2019, RCOP No. 14/2019, RCOP No. 15/2019. RCOP No.16/2019, RCOP No.18/2019, RCOP No 20/2019. RCOP No. 21/2019, RCOP No.22/2019, RCOP No.23/2019, RCOP No. 24/2019, RCOP No.27/2019, RCOP No.28/2019 and RCOP No.29/2019, denied the landlord tenant relationship, and contended that petitioner has not produced any document for proving his title over the scheduled building. Hence this court has to decide, whether the denial of title of petitioner is a bonafide one, and is to be proceeded accordingly. Accordingly, these petitions are not ripe for trial. In RCOP No. 13/2019. RCOP No.17/2019, and RCOP No.19/2019, objections are filed by the respondents and are ripe for trial. For that reason also, if the joint trial of all the 17 Rent Control Petitions are allowed, that will cause much delay in the disposal of the cases.

4. Filing of a single Original Petition for challenging orders of the Rent Control Court in interlocutory applications in seventeen rent control petitions was objected to. Going by the strict rule principle, it has to be said that separate Original Petitions should have been filed. By impleading respondents in every interlocutory application, the Original Petition has been filed. Separate court fees to challenge each of the said orders has been paid as well. Thus, there is no question of non- joinder of necessary parties or non-payment of requisite court fees. The rest is a matter of convenience. All the respondents were given notice. Therefore, there will not be any prejudice to any of the parties by proceeding with this Original Petition. In the circumstances, we hold that this Original Petition is maintainab

Click Here to Read the rest of this document