Combined eviction orders under mutually exclusive grounds in rent control are invalid and necessitate individual consideration.

O R D E R

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

The tenants are the revision petitioner in these revisions. The rent control court and the appellate authority have concurrently ordered eviction on the grounds under subsections (3) and (8) of Section 11 against the revision petitioner. In these revisions, the above eviction orders are assailed on various grounds. Apart from that, in RCR No.388/2011 the revision petitioner has filed I.A.No.2369/2011 seeking admittance of three documents - Annexures A, B and C as additional evidence on the side of the tenant.

2. Even though the respondent/landlord has been served with notice, for the reasons best known to them they have not chosen to enter appearance before this Court even though the proceedings were very hotly contested before the rent control court and the appellate authority. According to us, it is not necessary to re examine the merits of the various grounds which have been raised in these revisions against the eviction orders passed, as we find that there is at least one infirmity about the eviction order passed. As already indicated, the statutory authorities have passed a combined eviction order on the grounds under subsections (3) and (8) of Section 11 . It is trite by now that subsections (3) and (8) operate in different fields and a combined order cannot be passed as these two evictions grounds are mutually exclusive. It appears that the above aspect of the matter was not noticed by the appellate authority.

3. We are therefore inclined to direct the appellate authority to consider the above aspect of the matter. As the matter is being sent back to the appellate authority, we feel that the learned authority can be directed to consider the acceptance of Annexures A,B and C produced along with I.A.No.2369/11 as additional items of evidence on the side of the revision petitioner. The result of the above discussion therefore is as follows:

The judgments of the appellate authority which are impugned in these revisions are set aside and the rent control appeals are remanded to the Third Additional District Judge and the Appellate Authority Kozhikode. The learned appellate authority is directed to consider the acceptance of the three documents Annexures A, B and C produced along with I.A.No.2369/11. The learned appellate authority will also consider the question whether a combined order under subsections (3) and (8) of Section 11 is sustainable in law. Revised judgment will be passed by the appellate authority in both the RCAs in accordance with law after hearing both sides at the earliest and at any rate within a period of two months of receiving a copy of this judgment. The appellate authority will issue notice to both sides regarding posting of the revisions either directly or through their advocate before the appellate authority. Registry will return Annexures A,B and C to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner so as to enable him to produce them before the appellate authority.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

K. HARILAL, JUDGE.

cl