A rent control petition and civil suit cannot be jointly tried due to the distinct jurisdictions of the respective courts as per established legal principles.

JUDGMENT

Antony Dominic, J.

This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash Ext.P1 order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri dismissing I.A.No.2110 of 2014 filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.126 of 2002. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the land lord of a premises. In the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri there are four civil suits between the parties. Details of which are as follows:

2. O.S.No.126 of 2002 is a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent seeking an injunction against eviction otherwise than in accordance with law from the tenanted premises. O.S.No.107 of 2013 is a suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner seeking mandatory injunction to require him to remove unauthorized construction allegedly made by him. O.S.No.192 of 2013 is also a suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent seeking an order of injunction against him.

O.S.No.593 of 2013 is yet another suit filed by the petitioner claiming damages against the respondent. In the Rent Control Court, Manjeri respondent land lord has also filed R.C.P.No.17 of 2013 seeking eviction of the petitioner under sections 11(2),(b), 11(3) and 11(4) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In O.S.No.126 of 2012, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2110 of 2014 seeking joint trial of the suits along with R.C.P. No.17 of 2013. In that I.A. the court below has passed Ext.P1 order holding that original suits cannot be jointly tried along with Rent Control Petition. It is this order under challenge before us.

3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court inState Bank of India Vs. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. And another ( 2007 (1) SCC 97 ) and judgments of this Court inKuruvilla Abraham Vs. John ( 1995 (1) KLT 161 ) Sathyaseelan Vs. Madhavan Kalanadhan ( 2002 (1) KLT 913 ) andJose Antony Thottassery Vs. Anil Kuruvilla & others ( 2012 (1) KLT 531 ), the counsel for the petitioner contended that the suits and the Rent Control Petition are connected and that the civil court would have been well within its jurisdiction in jointly trying original suits along with Rent Control Petition. However this contention was refuted by the counsel for the respondent land lord stating that law is settled that the civil court cannot try a rent control petition filed under the Rent Control Act. He relied on the judgments of this Court inKunjali Hassan Kurup Vs. Abdul Sathr Sait ( 1963 KLT 407 ) and Perinigottukara Namboodiri Yogakshema Sabha Vs. Sreelatha ( 2005 (2) KLT 480 ). On this basis the counsel sought dismissal of the original petition.

4. We have considered the submissions made. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Munsiff was right in concluding that a petition filed under the Rent Control Act cannot be jointly tried with original suits. The jurisdiction to try the original suit is conferred on the civil courts. On the other hand insofar as proceedings under the Rent Control Act are concerned, Section 3 of the Act authorises the Government to appoint by notification a qualified person to be a Rent Control Court. Section 11 of the Rent Control Act provides that notwithstanding anything contrary to contain in any other law or contract a tenant shall not be evicted, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In this case, the Munsiff has been appointed as the Rent Control Court. Though the Munsiff's Court entertained original suits and in its capacity as the Rent Control Court, the Munsiff has entertained petition filed under the Rent Control Act, jurisdictions exercised are different and distinct and there is no overlapping of the jurisdiction. It was therefore that in Kunjali Hassan Kurup Vs. Abdul Sathr Sait ( 1963 KLT 407 ) where this Court interfered with the orders passed by the Munsiff's Court of Krishnapuram which was also