Sadanandan.K.C vs Sreeja.P.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 11754 Ker

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                        PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                           &
    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 30TH AGRA-
                      HAYANA, 1944
                RCREV. NO. 215 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 IN RCA 1/2021 OF
 THE     RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (Addl. DIS-
             TRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY
     IN RCP 105/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY

REVISION PETITIONER:


        SADANANDAN.K.C.,
        AGED 57 YEARS
        S/O KUMARAN, KUMAR NIVAS, KANAYANNUR, PO.,
        IRIVERI, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN:- 670613.

        BY ADVS.
        A.C.VENUGOPAL
        VIDHYA. A.C

RESPONDENTS:


        SREEJA.P.P.,
        AGED 49 YEARS
        W/O PRAKASHAN, NALINAM, MUNDAYAD, PO.
        MELECHOVVA, KANNUR DISTRICT. PIN-670006.

        BY ADV ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH(K/920/1998) FOR
        CAVEATOR

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 R.C.Rev.No.215 of 2022

                                 2



                              ORDER

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.105

of 2016 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Munsiff),

Thalassery, a petition filed by the respondent herein-

landlady, under Sections 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease

and Rent Control) Act, 1965, seeking an order of eviction of

the tenant from the petition schedule building. The tenant

entered appearance and filed counter in the Rent Control

Petition, opposing the order of eviction sought for. After

considering the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court by

the order dated 18.03.2020 allowed R.C.P.No.105 of 2016,

granting an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act

and the tenant is directed to give the vacant possession of

the building to the landlady, within two months from that

order.

2. Challenging the order of eviction granted by the

Rent Control Court dated 18.03.2020 in R.C.P.No.105 of

2016, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2021 before the Rent

Control Appellate Authority (Addl. District Judge-II),

Thalassery, under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. That appeal R.C.Rev.No.215 of 2022

was filed along with an application for condonation of delay,

i.e., I.A.No.2 of 2021. Though there is no delay in filing

R.C.A.No.1 of 2021, in view of the order of the Apex Court in

Re:Cognizance for Extension of Limitation [2021 (5)

KHC 508], the application for condonation of delay was filed

without noticing the said fact. The Rent Control Appellate

Authority allowed that interlocutory application for

condonation of delay on payment of a cost of Rs.1,500/-,

payable to the District Legal Aid and further sum of

Rs.1,000/- payable to the respondent-landlady. Though the

petitioner paid Rs.1,500/- as cost to the District Legal Aid, he

failed to pay the balance cost of Rs.1,000/- to the

respondent-landlady. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate

Authority by the order dated 23.09.2022 dismissed I.A.No.2

of 2021 and consequently, dismissed R.C.A.No.1 of 2021, as

barred by limitation.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control

Appellate Authority dated 23.09.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in

R.C.A.No.1 of 2021 and also the order of the Rent Control

Court dated 18.03.2020 in R.C.P.No.105 of 2016, the

petitioner-tenant is before this Court in this Rent Control R.C.Rev.No.215 of 2022

Revision filed under Section 20 of the Act.

4. On 05.12.2022, when this Rent Control Revision

came up for admission, this Court issued notice to the

caveator.

5. On 06.12.2022, when this Rent Control Revision

came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the

respondent submitted that I.A.No.2 of 2021 was allowed on

payment of cost. The appellant-tenant failed to pay the cost

in terms of that order. Accordingly, the delay condonation

petition was dismissed by the order dated 23.09.2022 and it

is thereafter, the Rent Control Appeal was dismissed as

barred by limitation by the order dated 23.09.2022. In

I.A.No.1 of 2022, this Court granted an interim order stating

that any coercive steps against the petitioner-tenant shall be

deferred till the next posting date.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-

tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-

landlady.

7. The issue that arises for consideration in this Rent

Control Revision is as to whether the order dated 23.09.2022

of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in I.A.No.2 of 2021 in R.C.Rev.No.215 of 2022

R.C.A.No.1 of 2021, whereby that appeal was dismissed as

barred by limitation, can be sustained in law.

8. 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.

9. 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 R.C.Rev.No.215 of 2022

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.

10. 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.

11. In view of the order of the Apex Court referred to

supra, R.C.A.No.1 of 2021 filed by the petitioner-tenant was

not barred by limitation. In such circumstances, the

impugned order dated 23.09.2022 of the Rent Control R.C.Rev.No.215 of 2022

Appellate Authority cannot be sustained in law.

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

setting aside the order dated 23.09.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2021

and also in R.C.A.No.1 of 2021, consequently restoring

R.C.A.No.1 of 2021 to the file of the Rent Control Appellate

Authority (Addl.District Judge-II), Thalassery. Both parties

shall appear before the Rent Control Appellate Authority on

09.01.2023 and the Appellate Authority shall finally dispose

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

within a period of three months.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE yd