R. Narayanan v Abdul Jaleel and Others (OP (RC) No. 31 of 2018 (O))

# **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1939** **OP (RC).No. 31 of 2018(O) ---------------------(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.2.2018 IN RP.2386/2017 IN RCP.30/2013 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT/PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT-I, KOZHIKODE)** ## **PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER/ 1ST RESPONDENT:** **--------------------------------------------** **R. NARAYANAN AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. RAJAN, THANAL HOUSE, VALAYANAD AMSOM DESOM, GOVINDHAPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 016.** **BY ADVS.SRI.NIRMAL. S SMT.VEENA HARI** **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 & SUPPL. 2ND RESPONDENT:** **------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. ABDUL JALEEL,** - **AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. MANAKKAL MEETHAL KUNHABDULLA, KOTTAPPILLI AMSOM, CHEMMARUTHUR DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.** **2. MUHAMMED RASHEED,** - **AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. MANAKKAL MEETHAL KUNHABDULLA, KOTTAPPILLI AMSOM, CHEMMARUTHUR DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.** **3. ABIDA AMEENATH,** - **AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. MANAKKAL MEETHAL KUNHABDULLA, KOTTAPPILLI AMSOM, CHEMMARUTHUR DESOM, VADAKRA TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.** **4. HANNATH,** - **AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. MANAKKAL MEETHAL KUNHABDULLA, KOTTAPPILLI AMSOM, CHEMMARUTHUR DESOM, VADAKRA TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.** **5. RAMLA,** - **AGED 43 YEARS, W/O. MANAKKAL MEETHAL KUNHABDULLA, KOTTAPPILLI AMSOM, CHEMMARUTHUR DESOM, VADAKRA TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.** **(...2)** **OP (RC).No. 31 of 2018(O)** **:2:** ## **6. BEENA THOMAS** **AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. THOMAS, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KANNACHAMKAVU, KODUNGALLUR, NOW RESIDING AT: THOTTUNGAL HOUSE, MALAPARAMBA P.O., NEAR MARUTHI POPULAR, NEDUNGOTOTUR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.** **THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP (RC).No. 31 of 2018 (O)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF RCP NO. 30/2013 DATED 27.03.2013. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 21.08.2013. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2017 IN RCP 30/2013. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P NO. 2386/2017 IN RCP 30/2013 DATED 17.02.2018. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 01.01.2017.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **OKB** **TRUE COPY** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## P.N.Ravindran & ## R.Narayana Pisharadi,JJ --------------------------- ## O.P.(RC) No.31 of 2018 --------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2018 ## JUDGMENT ## **P.N.Ravindran, J** The petitioner is the sole respondent in R.C.P. No.30 of 2013 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode. Respondents 1 to 5 herein instituted R.C.P. No.30 of 2013 under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) praying for an order evicting the petitioner herein. They had, inter alia, averred in R.C.P.No.30 of 2013 that the petitioner has without their consent or knowledge sublet the petition scheduled shop room to another and that person is doing business therein. 2. Upon receipt of summons the petitioner entered appearance and filed a counter statement wherein, after denying the allegation regarding subletting he stated that ever since the year 2007 he is running the business on a partnership basis. Later, the alleged partner of the petitioner (the sixth _O.P(RC).31/18_ **:2:** respondent herein) got herself impleaded as the supplemental second respondent in RCP No.30 of 2013 by filing I.A.No.1467 of 2015. It appears that even earlier disputes had arisen between the petitioner on the one hand and the sixth respondent on the other and she had filed O.S.No.180 of 2015 in the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode praying for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner as well as the landlords from interfering with the business being run by her in the petition scheduled shop room under the name and style “M/s. Real Toys and Gifts” and also from forcibly evicting her from the petition scheduled shop room. 3. Later, the petitioner herein filed O.S.No.249 of 2017 before the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode arraying the landlords as well as the sixth respondent as defendants. He has in that suit prayed for a decree evicting the sixth respondent and to hand over possession of the petition scheduled shop room to him. He has also prayed for a decree restraining the sixth respondent from obtaining a licence in her name and from conducting any business in the petition scheduled shop room. He has also prayed for a permanent prohibitory injection restraining the landlords from entering into a tenancy _O.P(RC).31/18_ **:3:** arrangement with the sixth respondent or any other person, pending disposal of R.C.P. No.30 of 2013. 4. It appears that the landlords and the sixth respondent came to an understanding and thereupon they jointly filed Ext.P3 statement dated 26-5-2017, wherein they prayed that accepting the said statement R.C.P. No.30 of 2013 may be dismissed. The text of Ext.P3 statement is extracted below. “tað \{¼nð lcPn¡mÀ t_m[n¸n¡pó tÌävsaâ v tað \{¼nð Iogv¡qen¡pw aäpwGð¸n¨ ImcW¯mð lcPn]«nI ]oSnIapdn Hgnªv Int«ïXnómbmWv lcPn t_m[n¸n¨Xv. tað]dª Imcy§Ä FXrI£nIÄ X½nepw lcPn¡mÀ X½nepw kwkmcn¨v H¯p XoÀóncn¡póp. BbXn³{]Imcw I.A.No.1467/2015 \¼À lcPn{]Imcw I£ntNÀón«pÅ lcPn¡mcnbmb _o\ tXmakv Fóhsc hmSIIpSnbm\mbn lcPn¡mÀ AwKoIcn¨ncn¡póp. AXn³{]ImcapÅ hmSI IpSnbmbva IcmÀ AwKoIcn¨pw k½Xn¨pw IcmÀ \ðInbn«pÅXmWv. tað]dª IcmÀ km£nIÄ ap¼msI H¸n«v ssIamdnbn«pÅXpw _o\ tXmakv FóhÀ------ XpSÀ¨bmbn ssIhiw sh¨vhcpóXpw _o\ tXmakv FóhÀ------ taemð hmSI IpSnbmbva IcmÀ AwKoIcn¡pIbpw k½Xn¡pIbpw sNbvXn«pÅXmWv. tað kmlNcy¯nð tað\¼À lcPn XpSÀóv \St¯ïXnñm¯XmWv. BbXn\mð tað\¼À lcPn Cu tÌävsaâ v kzoIcn¨v \o¡n Ið]\bmthïXv apJymhiyhpw AXnót] ” £bpÅXpamIpóp. 5. The aforesaid statement is to the effect that the dispute has been settled between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondents on the other and that as per the said _O.P(RC).31/18_ **:4:** settlement the landlords have accepted the additional second respondent who got herself impleaded as per order passed in I.A.No.1467 of 2015 as the tenant. The statement also refers to the fact that the requisite documents have been executed whereby the sixth respondent has been recognised as the tenant. It is stated that in such circumstances the landlords are not desirous of prosecuting the Rent Control Petition any further and, therefore, it may be dismissed. The joint statement was filed in the Rent Control Court on 19-6-2017 and it was recorded and Ext.P3 order was passed on 21-6-2017. The said order reads as follows: “Petition is filed under Section 11(3) , 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Matter is settled. Joint statement filed. Recorded. In view of joint statement Rent Control Petition is dismissed. No costs.” 6. The petitioner thereupon filed Review Petition No.2386 of 2017 in RCP No.30 of 2013 seeking a review of Ext.P3 order. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, he had averred that the Rent Control Court did not take note of the fact that he is not a signatory to the joint statement. The first respondent landlord filed a counter _O.P(RC).31/18_ **:5:** affidavit resisting the review petition. After considering the rival contentions the Rent Control Court held that though it is true that the petitioner is not a signatory to the joint statement, as the landlords do not want to prosecute the Rent Control Petition even against him, the dismissal of the Rent Control Petition will not be prejudicial to his interest. The Rent Control Court also held that as the Rent Control Petition was dismissed on the basis of the joint statement filed by respondents 1 to 6 the contention of the petitioner that there is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The petitioner has, aggrieved thereby, filed this Original Petition. 7. Before us, Sri.S.Nirmal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in **K.K.Chari v. R.M.Seshadri** (AIR 1973 SC 1311) that the impugned order should have reflected the terms of the compromise and, therefore, as the terms of the compromise have not been recorded in Ext.P3 order, the Rent Control Court erred in dismissing the Rent Control Petition. The learned counsel contended that, in any view of the matter, without the junction of the petitioner, the Rent Control Court should not have accepted Ext.P3 joint statement and proceeded to dispose _O.P(RC).31/18_ **:6:** of the Rent Control Petition. We are afraid, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in **K.K.Chari** (supra) cannot be applied to the case on hand. The instant case is not one where an order of eviction is passed. All that has happened in the instant case is that the landlords had come to an arrangement out of court with the alleged sub-tenant, who, according to the petitioner, is his partner and recognised her as the tenant, executed necessary documents and stated that they are not desirous of prosecuting the Rent Control Petition. In the light of the said statement, the Rent Control Court could not have proceeded to try and dispose of the Rent Control Petition. It could not have also proceeded to enquire into and adjudicate upon the disputes inter se between the petitioner on the one hand and his partner on the other, which, as stated earlier, is the subject matter of two suits, viz., O.S.No.180 of 2015 and O.S.No.249 of 2017 presently pending in the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode. Further, as noticed by the learned Rent Control Court, the order dismissing the Rent Control Petition cannot be said to be an order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. It is stated in Ext.P3 joint statement that in view of the developments referred to therein it is not necessary to prosecute R.C.P. No.30 of 2013 _O.P(RC).31/18_ **:7:** and, therefore, it may be dismissed. In such circumstances, merely for the reason that there are disputes inter se between the petitioner on the one hand and the sixth respondent on the other, we find no reason or justification to entertain this Original Petition and adjudicate upon the disputes inter se between the petitioner and the sixth respondent and enter a finding as to who among them is the tenant entitled to remain in possession of the tenanted premises. That is a matter which, in our opinion, should be best left to be decided by the Court of the Munsiff of Kozhikode, where the two suits referred to above are pending. The contention which the petitioner has pressed into service in the instant petition can, in our opinion, be raised and argued in the suits which are pending. We, therefore, find no good grounds to entertain the instant Original Petition. It fails and is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- ## P.N.Ravindran ## Judge Sd/- ## R.Narayana Pisharadi Judge //True copy// P.A. to Judge okb.