Kerala High Court
M/S.G.S.Pai And Company vs Kadavmbhagom Synagogue
Bench: K.T.Sankaran, M.L.Joseph Francis
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/8TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
OP (RC).No. 4049 of 2012 (O)
----------------------------
I.A.NO.4630/12 IN RCP.74/2012 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL)
PETITIONER:
-------------
M/S.G.S.PAI AND COMPANY
DOOR NO.40/3510, JEWS STREET, ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNER.
BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR
RESPONDENT:
--------------
KADAVMBHAGOM SYNAGOGUE
MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMITTEE MEMBERS:1. ELIAS JOSEPHAI
S/O.LATE JOSEPHAI,2. SIMON JOSEPHAI
S/O.LATE JOSEPHAI
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(R.C.) 4049 OF 2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.12.2010 IN I.A.NO.6019 OF 2008
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 28.1.2012
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 11.2.2002 SENT BY THE
PETITIONER THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT CONTROL PETITION IN R.C.P.NO.74 OF 2012
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.3745/2012 INO R.C.P.NO.74 OF 2012
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF COUNTER IN I.A.3745/2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2012 IN I.A.NO.3745/2012
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A.4630 OF 2012 IN R.C.P.NO.74 O 2012
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2012 IN EXT.P9 APPLICATION
I.A.4630/12
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
K.T.SANKARAN &
M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P.(R.C.) No.4049 of 2012 O
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of December, 2012
JUDGMENT
K.T. Sankaran J., The petitioner is the respondent in R.C.P. No.74 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The R.C.P. was filed by Kadavumbhagam Synagogue, Market Road, Ernakulam, Kochi - 35 represented by its Managing Trustees Elias Josephai and Simon Josephai. Elias Josephai was the receiver of the Synagogue as appointed by the Court in O.S. No.65 of 1114 ME. An application was filed before the District Court, Ernakulam by a person representing the Synagogue to discharge the receiver. A mediation took place. As per the mediation agreement, the applicant therein (Abraham Sanson Josephai), Elias Josephai and their brother Simon Josephai constituted a committee for the administration of O.P.(R.C.) No.4049 of 2012 :2: the Synagogue and its properties.
2. R.C.P. was filed by the Synagogue, represented by two of the committee members who described themselves as the Managing Trustees. The tenant filed an application stating that the petitioner in the R.C.P. is not entitled to receive rent and the tenant may be permitted to deposit the rent before the Court. By a detailed order, the Rent Control Court allowed that application and the tenant was permitted to deposit the rent before Court.
3. The petitioners in the R.C.P. filed I.A. No.4630 of 2012 to amend the R.C.P. by substituting the words 'committee members' in the place of 'managing trustees'. The Rent Control Court allowed the application for amendment by the order dated 12.11.2012 which is under challenge by the tenant in this O.P.(R.C.).
4. The Rent Control Court held that the expression "managing trustees" were made in the cause title of the R.C.P. by mistake and the petitioner in the R.C.P. should be permitted to correct the mistake. As regards the contention raised by the tenant that the persons who filed R.C.P. are not entitled to represent or O.P.(R.C.) No.4049 of 2012 :3: manage the affairs of the Synagogue and that they are not entitled to receive the rent on behalf of the Synagogue, it was held that these contentions could be raised by the tenant in the main proceeding. It was held that such an objection is not a ground for dismissing the application for amendment.
5. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the Rent Control Court. In view of Section 23(1)(j) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the Rent Control Court has the power which is vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure to amend any defect or error in orders or proceedings. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Rent Control Court. Accordingly the O.P.(R.C.) is dismissed.
sd K.T. SANKARAN, (JUDGE) sd M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/