K.K.Hamsa vs Athikottu Snehaletha
2021 Latest Caselaw 2616 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

                                &

          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

   FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 2ND MAGHA, 1942

                   RCRev..No.258 OF 2018

UNDER SEC.20 OF THE KERALA BUILDING (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL)
  ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 146/2017 OF RENT CONTROL
 APPELLATE AUTHORIT, DISTRICT JUDGE,KOZHIKODE, DTD 18.6.2018
    IN IA 1935/2017 & IA 1936/2017 IN RCP 80/2014 OF RENT
      CONTROL COURT/PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT-II,KOZHIKODE


REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            K.K.HAMSA
            AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. KIZHEKKEKOTTAYIL KUNJI
            MUHAMMED,MELPALLI HOUSE, PUTTEKKADU, FEROKE P.O,
            FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM,KOZHIKODE 673 631.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.NIRMAL. S
            SMT.VEENA HARI

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

            ATHIKOTTU SNEHALETHA
            W/O. SUBRAMANYAN, AGED 56 YEARS,
            "GIRIJALAYAM",FEROKE P.O, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR
            DESOM,KOZHIKODE 673 631.

            BY ADV. R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.C.R.No.258 of 2018

                                     :-2-:

            Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2021


                             J U D G M E N T

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner and the respondent.

2. Revision petitioner is the tenant who is

sought to be evicted in R.C.P.No.80/2014 before the

Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff-II),

Kozhikode. The tenant was set ex parte in the

proceedings. He filed an application for setting

aside the ex parte order of eviction with a

petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to

condone delay of 145 days. That application was

dismissed by the Rent Control Court, finding that

there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay.

Thereafter, the tenant approached the Rent Control

Court Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, with

R.C.A.No.146/2017. The Rent Control Appellate R.C.R.No.258 of 2018

:-3-:

Authority referring to some precedents, held that

the Rent Control Court has no power to condone the

delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

This question was specifically referred to a Full

Bench in large number of cases. It has been finally

answered by a judgment pronounced by the Full Bench

on 03.12.2020 in Faisal v. Vikas Chacko (2020(6)

KLT 722). It has been clearly found that the Rent

Control Court is having power under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act to condone delay, if sufficient

cause was shown. In view of this decision of the

Full Bench, we are of the view that the findings by

the authority below cannot be sustained.

In the result, we set aside the order passed by

the Rent Control Court, Kozhikode on the

application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation

Act and remit the matter to be considered on merits

as expeditiously as possible. In the event the Rent R.C.R.No.258 of 2018

:-4-:

Control Court allows the application, the trial of

the eviction petition shall be completed within a

period of three months thereafter.

All pending interlocutory applications are

closed.

Sd/-

A.HARIPRASAD JUDGE

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE ami/