Alice Paulose vs Abdul Majeed
2021 Latest Caselaw 2277 Ker

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                                         &

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

            WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942

                               RCRev..No.224 OF 2020

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCA 139/2017 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,
                                   THRISSUR

    AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RCP 12/2012 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR

REVISION PETITIONER/S:
        1       ALICE PAULOSE
                AGED 63 YEARS
                W/O. LATE PAULOSE, CHITTILAPPILLY VEETTIL HOUSE, KAKATHIRUTHY,
                EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR

        2        STEPHEN PAULOSE,
                 AGED 47 YEARS
                 S/O. LATE PAULOSE, CHITTILAPPILLY VEETTIL HOUSE, KAKATHIRUTHY,
                 EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR

        3        TREESA THOMAS,
                 D/O. LATE PAULOSE, CHITTILAPPILLY VEETTIL HOUSE, KAKATHIRUTHY,
                 EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR

        4        SHEEBA JAISON,
                 AGED 46 YEARS
                 D/O. LATE PAULOSE, CHITTILAPPILLY VEETTIL HOUSE, KAKATHIRUTHY,
                 EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR
                 BY ADVS.
                 SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P
                 SRI.THIYYANNOOR RAMAKRISHNAN
                 SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN

RESPONDENT/S:
                 ABDUL MAJEED
                 AGED 75 YEARS
                 S/O. CHERUVATTATH MUHAMMED, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR,
                 THRISSUR 680 681

                 R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
                 R1 BY ADV. SMT.AMBILY (PREMKUMAR)

       THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 RCRev..No.224 OF 2020              2




                  A.HARIPRASAD & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                          --------------------------------
                            R.C.R No. 224 of 2020
                           -------------------------------
                   Dated this the 20th day of January, 2021


                                 ORDER

A.Hariprasad J,

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and respondent.

2. The petitioners are legal heirs of the original tenant, who

was sought to be evicted in RCP No.12/2012 before the Rent Control

Court, Kodungallur. The tenant remained absent when the matter was

posted for evidence and the Rent Control Court set him ex parte and

allowed the eviction petition in favour of the respondent. Thereafter,

an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by the tenant

before the Rent Control Court to set aside the ex-parte order. That

application was filed with a delay of 328 days. Therefore, the tenant

filed another application under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to condone

the delay. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed by

the Rent Control Court finding that there was no sufficient cause

shown by the tenant. That matter was taken in appeal to the Rent

Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur in RCA No. 139/2017.

3. The appellate court noticing the decision in Ratheesh v.

A.M.Chacko [2018 (4) KLJ 841] held that the Rent Control Court

could not have condoned the delay as Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is

inapplicable to rent control proceedings. The learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that decision in Ratheesh's case was over

ruled by a Full Bench decision in Hamsa K.K. And others v.

Athikottu Snehaletha & others [2020 (6) KHC 609]. According to

him, therefore, the legal logic of the court's below has eroded.

However, the learned counsel for respondent/landlord opposed the

application contending that the Rent Control Court dismissed the

application not only on finding that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is

inapplicable to the proceedings, but on merits.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of

the view that the parties should be given an opportunity to contest

the case on merits. Therefore, we allow the revision on the following

terms.

1) The order passed by the Rent Control Court on IA

Nos.3286/2015 and 3287/2015 in RCP No.12/2012 of the Rent Control

Court, Kodungallur are allowed and the ex-parte order passed against

the predecessor of the petitioners is set aside. The revision petitioners

are allowed to raise the contentions that had been risen by their

predecessor.

2) The Rent Control Court shall dispose of the case on or before

9.4.2021. It is also directed that the tenants shall deposit the entire

admitted arrears within a period of 3 weeks from today before the

Rent Control Court, failing which the court below is entitled to take

appropriate action.

Accordingly, the revision petition stands allowed.

Sd/-

A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS