K.Sulaiman vs K.P.Nafeesa
2021 Latest Caselaw 22541 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
                              &
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                   R.C.REV. NO.144 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2021 IN R.C.A NO.99 OF 2020 OF
   THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT JUDGE),
 KOZHIKODE AND THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2020 IN R.C.P NO.174 OF
   2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF -I),
                          KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER:

          K.SULAIMAN,
          AGED 53 YEARS
          S/O.MUHAMMED, PETRO GULF AGENCIES, V.K.COMPLEX,
          KOTTOLI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 001,
          BY ADVS.
          K.M.FIROZ
          M.SHAJNA


RESPONDENTS:

    1     K.P.NAFEESA,
          AGED 54 YEARS
          W/O.MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKE PARAMBIL HOUSE,
          P.O.CHEKKILODE, CHEKKILODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
          KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 613.
    2     K.P.MUBEENA,
          AGED 31 YEARS
          D/O.MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKE PARAMBIL HOUSE,
          P.O.CHEKKILODE, CHEKKILODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
          KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 613.
    3     K.P.MUNEERA,
          AGED 29 YEARS
          D/O.MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKE PARAMBIL HOUSE,
          P.O.CHEKKILODE, CHEKKILODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
          KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 613.
                                 2

R.C.R.No.144 of 21

     4       K.P.MUFSILA,
             AGED 26 YEARS
             D/O.MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKE PARAMBIL HOUSE,
             P.O.CHEKKILODE, CHEKKILODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
             KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 613.
     5       K.P.MUBAS,
             AGED 24 YEARS
             D/O.MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKE PARAMBIL HOUSE,
             P.O.CHEKKILODE, CHEKKILODE AMSOM AND DESOM,
             KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 613.

     THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                3

R.C.R.No.144 of 21

                             ORDER

Anil K. Narendran, J

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.174 of

2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff-I),

Kozhikode, a petition filed by the respondents herein-landlords

under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings

(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In R.C.P.No.174 of 2015,

the Rent Control Court passed an ex-parte order of eviction

under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act, which is one

dated 10.02.2020. The learned counsel for the tenant

submitted a copy application for certified copy of that order, on

15.02.2020. Stamps were called for on 20.05.2020. Stamps

were produced on 21.05.2020. The certified copy of the order

was ready and it was notified for appearance on 02.06.2020.

On 22.06.2020, the certified copy was received by the learned

counsel for the tenant. Thereafter, the tenant filed R.C.A No.99

of 2020 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District

Judge), Kozhikode, invoking the provisions under Section 18(1)

(b) of the Act. That appeal was supported by I.A.No.1 of 2020,

an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

seeking an order to condone the delay of 163 days. The

landlords filed counter opposing the relief sought for in that

interlocutory application. After considering the rival contentions,

the Rent Control Appellate Authority, by the order dated

27.03.2021, dismissed I.A.No.1 of 2021 in R.C.A.No.99 of 2020

on the ground that there is inordinate delay in filing the appeal,

which cannot be condoned without any satisfactory reason.

Consequently, the Appellate Authority dismissed R.C.A.No.99 of

2020 as time barred, by the order dated 27.03.2021. Feeling

aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority in I.A.No.1 of

2020 in R.C.A No.99 of 2020 and the consequential order in

R.C.A.No.99 of 2020, the petitioner-tenant is before this Court

in this Rent Control Revision filed under Section 20 of the Act.

2. On 28.10.2021, when this revision came up for

admission, this Court issued notice on admission to the

respondents by special messenger, returnable by 05.11.2021.

In I.A.No.1 of 2021, this Court granted an interim order staying

the operation and execution of the order dated 10.02.2020 in

R.C.P.No.174 of 2015 on the file of the Rent Control Court,

Kozhikode, for a period of three weeks.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant.

Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondents-

landlords.

4. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent

Control Revision is as to whether any interference is warranted

in the order dated 27.03.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in

R.C.A.No.99 of 2020 the Rent Control Appellate Authority and

also the consequential order, i.e., order dated 27.03.2021 in

R.C.A.No.99 of 2020, whereby that appeal stands dismissed as

time barred.

5. The Limitation Act, 1963 was enacted by the

Parliament to consolidate and amend the law for the limitation

of suits and other proceedings and for purposes connected

therewith. Section 5 of the Act deals with extension of

prescribed period in certain cases. As per Section 5, any appeal

or any application, other than an application under any of the

provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,

may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or

the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for

not preferring the appeal or making the application within such

period. As per Explanation to Section 5, the fact that the

appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or

judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the

prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of

this Section.

6. It is well settled that the Law of Limitation is founded

on public policy to ensure that the parties to a litigation do not

resort to dilatory tactics and seek legal remedy without delay.

In an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the

court has to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown.

Adopting a liberal approach in condoning the delay is one of the

guiding principles, but such liberal approach cannot be equated

with a licence to approach the court-at-will disregarding the

time limit fixed by the relevant statute. The acts of negligence

or inaction on the part of a litigant do not constitute sufficient

cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, in the matter of

condonation of delay, sufficient cause is required to be shown,

thereby explaining the sequence of events and the

circumstances that led to the delay.

7. In Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation

[2021 (5) KHC 508] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court

held that in computing the period of limitation for any suit,

appeal, application or proceedings, the period from 15.03.2020

till 12.10.2021 shall stand excluded.

8. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court,

there is no necessity for the tenant to file an application for

condonation of delay along with R.C.A.No.99 of 2020, since the

said appeal can be treated as one filed before the Rent Control

Appellate Authority, Kozhikode, withing the period of limitation.

9. In the result, this Rent Control Revision is allowed by

setting aside the order dated 27.03.2021 of the Rent Control

Appellate Authority, Kozhikode in I.A.No.1 of 2020 and also the

consequential order dated 27.03.2021 in R.C.A.No.99 of 2020.

Accordingly, R.C.A.No.99 of 2020 is restored to file and the

Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode is directed to

dispose of that appeal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within a period of four months from the date of production of a

certified copy of this order.

Interim order granted on 28.10.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021

shall continue for a period of one month from today, so as to

enable the petitioner-tenant to obtain interim order in the

interlocutory application filed before the Rent Control Appellate

Authority, Kozhikode in R.C.A.No.99 of 2020.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

PV