MINI JAMES v. EMIL J THACHIL and others

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN** **THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1940** **RCRev..No. 256 of 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31-05-2018 IN RCA NO.86/2015 of RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25-09-2015 IN RCP NO.30/2015 of RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT:-** **-------------------------------** **MINI JAMES, W/O.JAMES, AGED 48,IV/706,NEDUVELI VEETIL, PALLIPRAM KARA, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 682 024.** **BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.CHARLES SMT.A.T.RENJU** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN R.C.P. AND RESPONDENT:-** **--------------------------------------------------------------** **1. EMIL J THACHIL, S/O. JOHN T.K, AGED 37, THACHIL HOSUE, CHEMBUKAVU DESOM, TRICHUR VILLAGE, TRISSUR 680 020, NOW RESIDING AT THAYANKERI HOUSE, PALLIPRAM KARA, MAROTTICHOLDE,VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI 682 024.** **2. THANU MARIA GEORGE, W/O. EMIL J. THACHIL, AGED 31, THACHIL HOSUE, CHEMBUKAVU DESOM, TRICHUR VILLAGE, TRISSUR 680 020, NOW RESIDING AT THAYANKERI HOUSE, PALLIPRAM KARA, MAROTTICHOLDE,VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI 682 024.** **3. ANTONY PIOS, S/O. FRANCIS, AGED 55, KANAPPALLY HOUSE, SAMBALLOOR DESON, K.V PURAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM THALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.P. MARTIN JOSE (CAVEATOR)** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **DST** ## **K. HARILAL & ANNIE JOHN,JJ.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =** **R.C.R.No.256 of 2018 - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -** _Dated this the 2[nd] day of August, 2018_ ## **O R D E R** ## **K. Harilal, J.** The revision petitioner is the appellant in R.C.A. No.86 of 2015 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. The aforesaid appeal was filed, challenging an order of eviction passed under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 _(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')_ . The appellant was not a party to the Rent Control Petition No.30 of 2015. Though she has filed Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015 in the aforesaid Rent Control Petition, seeking to get impleaded in the proceedings, the said application was dismissed. Subsequently, the order granting ## **R.C.R. No.256 of 2018** ## **-: 2 :-** eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) was passed in the said Rent Control Petition. The revision petitioner, who was not a party to the rent control proceedings, challenged the order passed on merits in the Rent Control Petition on various grounds before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority considered the preliminary point, whether the revision petitioner has _locus standi_ to file an appeal and after considering the rival pleas, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, on a finding that the revision petitioner has failed to prove her _locus standi_ to file the appeal and also her right to get the order of eviction passed in R.C.P. No.30 of 2015 set aside and that the revision petitioner is not an aggrieved person, as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid finding, ## **R.C.R. No.256 of 2018** ## **-: 3 :-** are challenged in this revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the landlords, who filed R.C.P. No.30 of 2015 and they have filed the R.C.P. against the 3[rd] respondent herein under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act. While so, the revision petitioner herein filed Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015, seeking an order granting permission to get herself impleaded in the rent control proceedings. 4. According to the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner is the owner in possession of the petition schedule building and appurtenant land. She had availed a loan from the father of the 2[nd] respondent and towards security to the transaction the revision petitioner had to execute two sale ## **R.C.R. No.256 of 2018** ## **-: 4 :-** deeds in respect of the building and property and subsequently, the revision petitioner instituted a suit in Sub Court, Ernakulam as IOP No.1 of 2015 for a declaration of title and possession over the petition schedule building and consequential injunction and the said suit is pending consideration. Even after the execution of those documents in favour of the father of the 2[nd] respondent, the revision petitioner continued to be in possession of the petition schedule building. The impleading petition was filed on the above premises. 5. The respondents herein filed objection to the impleading petition and after considering the revision petitioner's right to get impleaded in rent control petition and the objection thereon raised by the respondents 1 and 2, the Rent Control Court ## **R.C.R. No.256 of 2018** ## **-: 5 :-** dismissed the said application, on a finding that the revision petitioner has no _locus standi_ to get impleaded in the rent control proceedings. It is not disputed that no appeal has been filed, challenging the said order and the said order has attained a finality. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has filed this appeal, challenging the order granting eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act on merits. 6. It is pertinent to note that the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015 was not produced before the Appellate Authority in the said appeal. The reasoning, whereby the application seeking to implead her was dismissed by the Rent Control Court, was not brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority. It is true that under Section 18 of the Act, any person aggrieved by ## **R.C.R. No.256 of 2018** ## **-: 6 :-** an order passed by the Rent Control Court may, within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction. What is the scope and extent of 'any person' contemplated under Section 18 of the Act? This Court in _**Anandan v. Valsan**_ [1997(1) KLT 23] considered the scope and extent of expression 'any person' and held that under Section 18(2) of the Act, only a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court can prefer an appeal and any person aggrieved by order means any person against whom an order of eviction was passed by the Rent Control Court only. 7. In the instant case, no order of eviction has been passed against the revision petitioner. Hence, it is needless to say the revision petitioner is not an aggrieved person. That apart, the order ## **R.C.R. No.256 of 2018** ## **-: 7 :-** rejecting the impleading petition passed in Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015 was not challenged so far and the impugned order challenged in appeal was passed on merits only, without touching the alleged right of the revision petitioner with respect to the petition schedule building. Therefore, the revision petitioner's title and possession over the petition schedule building was not an issue considered or decided in the final order passed by the Rent Control Court. Therefore, the earlier order passed in Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015, which attained a finality is binding on the Appellate Authority also. We are of the opinion that the absence of challenge against the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.6701 of 2015 is fatal to the subsequent appeal filed by the revision petitioner. ## **R.C.R. No.256 of 2018** ## **-: 8 :-** 8. Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that the revision petitioner has claimed title and possession over the petition schedule building, stating that the documents purportedly executed as sale deeds by the revision petitioner in favour of respondents 1 and 2 are not valid sale deeds and neither title nor possession was transferred under the alleged sale deeds. The revision petitioner has already filed civil suit as O.S. No.72 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, seeking declaration of title and possession and that civil suit is pending. 9. As rightly observed by the Appellate Authority, if he succeeds in that Original Suit, the revision petitioner will not be a looser, even if the impugned order sought to be challenged in appeal stands as such. In the above view also, the ## **R.C.R. No.256 of 2018** ## **-: 9 :-** revision petitioner is not an aggrieved person, as contemplated under Section 18 of the Act. We do not find any kind of illegality and impropriety in the findings, whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition will stand dismissed. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand closed. Sd/- **K. HARILAL, JUDGE** Sd/- **ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE** DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge