Kerala High Court
Ambrose P. Thomas vs Seethalakshmi M.K on 17 January, 2020
Author: K.Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal, P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 27TH POUSHA, 1941
OP (RC).No.9 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.8759/2019 IN RCA 57/2019 OF ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VII, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/S:
AMBROSE P. THOMAS, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS, PAVOTHITHARA HOUSE, PUTHUVYPE P.O.,
ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 508
BY ADV. SRI.JOHN MATHEW (THEREZHATH)
RESPONDENT/S:
SEETHALAKSHMI M.K., AGED 61 YEARS
D/O. KUMARAPILLAI, CC 43/2609, SASTHA TEMPLE ROAD,
KOCHI - 18 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SANTHI NIKETHANAM
COMMUNITY HOME, SAHODHARAN MEMORIAL SADANAM JUBILEE
BUILDING, SAMAJAM ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI - 23
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (RC).No.9 OF 2020 ..2..
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of January 2020 K.HARILAL,J.
This original petition has been filed, challenging Ext.P5 order, whereby, the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed Ext.P4 application, on a finding that there is no valid ground to allow the petition filed by the tenant, to implead the daughter of the respondent/landlord; one of the co-owners of the tenanted premises.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. It is needless to say that in a rent control petition, the scope and extent of amendment by impleadment to the rent control OP (RC).No.9 OF 2020 ..3..
petition is very limited and confined to the grounds enumerated under Section 23 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. That apart, we further find that the legal position stands well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that one of the co-owners has right to file a rent control petition, seeking an order of eviction against the tenant and all the other co-owners are not necessary parties in a Rent Control Petition seeking an order of eviction. Therefore, the other landlord; the daughter of the respondent, even if she is a co-owner, is not a necessary party to determine the issue involved in the rent control petition. In view of the definition of landlord under Section 2(3) of the said OP (RC).No.9 OF 2020 ..4..
Act, the paramount title of the building does not require consideration in a Rent Control Petition. Since, the presence of the other co-owner is not required to determine the question in controversy involved in the rent control petition, the Appellate Authority is justified in rejecting the application. We do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the impugned order under challenge.
Hence this original petition would stand dismissed.
Sd/-
K.HARILAL JUDGE Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
SB/18/01/2020
JUDGE
OP (RC).No.9 OF 2020 ..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF AND RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM IN R.C.P. NO.31/2018 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18/02/2019 PASSED BY THE IIIRD ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF AND RENT CONTROLLER, ERNAKULAM IN R.C.P. NO.31/2018 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE SAID APPEAL PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT AT ERNAKULAM AS R.C.A. NO.57 OF 2019 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN RCA EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07/01/2020 PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW IN THE EXT.P4 PETITION.
RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE