Kerala High Court
Venugopal (Late) vs Hrishikesham Tourist Home on 4 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944
RCREV. NO. 33 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2019 IN R.C.A.NO.101/2011
ON THE FILES OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE
AUTHORITY, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 VENUGOPAL (LATE), AGED 65 YEARS
S/O VETTATH KOTTILINGAL NARAYANAN,
DECEASED ON 07/11/2019,
REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL HEIRS.
2 CHANDRIKA VENUGOPALAN, AGED 63 YEARS
W/O LATE VENUGOPALAN,
KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, KANDANASERRY VILLAGE,
KANDANASERRY DESOM, THALAPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680102.
3 VIBEESH, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O LATE VENUGOPALAN,
KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, KANDANASERRY VILLAGE,
KANDANASERRY DESOM, THALAPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680102.
4 VIJEESH, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O LATE VENUGOPALAN,
KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, KANDANASERRY VILLAGE,
KANDANASERRY DESOM, THALAPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680102.
5 VINEESH, AGED 36 YEARS
S/O LATE VENUGOPALAN,
KOTTILINGAL HOUSE, KANDANASERRY VILLAGE,
KANDANASERRY DESOM, THALAPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT-680102.
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
2
BY ADVS.
V.V.JOY
SMT.LEKSHMI P. NAIR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
HRISHIKESHAM TOURIST HOME
GURUVAYOOR REP. BY MG. PARTNER, MADHAVAN,
S/O. VALIYARA PADINJAREKKARA RAMAN,
KANDANASERRY VILLAGE, KANDANASERRY DESOM,
THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
SRI.S.SHYAM
SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04.07.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.R.NO.37/2021, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1944
RCREV. NO. 37 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2019 IN
R.C.A.NO.136/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE IV ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR
I.A.NOS.5064/2010 & 5065/2010 IN RCP NO.142/2005 ON THE
FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, CHAVAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 CHANDRIKA VENUGOPALAN, AGED 63 YEARS
W/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE,
KANDANASERRY VILLAGE, KANDANASERRY DESOM,
THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 102.
2 VIBEESH, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE,
KANDANASERRY VILLAGE, KANDANASERRY DESOM,
THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 102.
3 VIJEESH, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE,
KANDANASERRY VILLAGE, KANDANASERRY DESOM,
THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 102.
4 VINEESH, AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. LATE VENUGOPALAN, KOTTILINGAL HOUSE,
KANDANASERRY VILLAGE, KANDANASERRY DESOM,
THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 102.
BY ADV V.V.JOY
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
4
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
HRISHIKESHAM TOURIST HOME,
GURUVAYOOR, REP. BY MG. PARTNER, MADHAVAN,
S/O. VALIYARA PADINJAREKKARA RAMAN,
KANDANASERRY VILLAGE, KANDANASERRY DESOM,
THALAPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
SRI.V.K.BALACHANDRAN
SRI.S.SHYAM
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.07.2022, ALONG WITH R.C.R.NO.33/2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
5
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The 1st petitioner in R.C.R.No.33 of 2021 is the
respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.142 of 2005 on the file of the
Rent Control Court (Munsiff), Chavakkad, which is one filed by
the respondent herein-landlord seeking eviction of tenant from
the petition schedule shop room. Before the Rent Control
Court, the tenant entered appearance and filed a counter,
opposing the order of eviction sought for. On the side of the
landlord, its Managing Partner was examined as PW1. There
was no cross examination by the tenant. The Rent Control
Court passed an ex-parte order of eviction on 08.10.2007. The
tenant filed an interlocutory application to set aside the
ex-parte order of eviction. That application was allowed by the
order dated 17.10.2007, on payment of a cost of Rs.500/-. But
the cost was not paid and as a result, that application was
dismissed. The tenant took up the matter before the Rent
Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. That appeal was allowed
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
and the parties were directed to appear before the Rent
Control Court on 30.07.2010. However, the tenant failed to
appear before the Rent Control Court on that day and he was
again set ex-parte, by the order dated 30.07.2010. The tenant
filed I.A.No.5065 of 2010, an application to set aside the ex-
parte order of eviction, along with I.A.No.5064 of 2010 for
condonation of delay of 62 days. The landlord opposed that
application by filing counter. The tenant was examined as RW1.
After considering the rival contentions, the Rent Control Court,
by the order dated 29.03.2011 dismissed both the applications,
with cost. Challenging the said order of the Rent Control Court,
the tenant filed R.C.A.Nos.101 of 2011 and 136 of 2011 before
the IV Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur.
Those appeals ended in dismissal by the judgment dated
26.09.2019, which is under challenge in these Rent Control
Revisions filed under Section 20 of the Act.
2. On 09.02.2022 when R.C.R.No.33 of 2021 came up
for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. In
I.A.No.1 of 2021 in R.C.R.No.33 of 2021, this Court granted
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
an interim order staying all further proceedings in
R.C.A.No.101 of 2011 for a period of four months.
3. On 16.02.2021, when R.C.R.No.37 of 2021 came up
for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. In
I.A.No.1 of 2021 in R.C.R.No.37 of 2021, this Court granted an
interim order staying all further proceedings in R.C.A.No.136 of
2011 for a period of two months.
4. After the dismissal of R.C.A.Nos.101 of 2011 and
136 of 2011, the tenant died and his legal heirs have filed
these Rent Control Revisions, who are arrayed as petitioners 2
to 5.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-
tenants and also the learned counsel for the respondent-
landlord.
6. The issue that arises for consideration in these Rent
Control Revisions is as to whether any interference is
warranted, on the orders of the authorities below, whereby the
applications filed by the original tenant to set aside the
ex-parte order and also for condonation of delay stand
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point
out that the extent of delay in filing the application for
condonation of delay was only 62 days. Valid reasons have
been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application
for condonation of delay, for the delay of 62 days.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent would point out that the tenant was originally set
ex-parte in the year 2007 and it is thereafter that, for the
second time he was set ex-parte in the year 2019.
9. 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
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
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.
10. 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
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
required to be shown, thereby explaining the sequence of
events and the circumstances that led to the delay.
11. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji [(1987)
2 SCC 107 : AIR 1987 SC 1353], in the context of Section 5
of the Limitation Act, 1963, a Two-Judge Bench of the Apex
Court held that, the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by
the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to
apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the
ends of justice, that being the life-purpose for the existence of
the institution of courts.
12. In Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649] a Two-Judge Bench of the
Apex Court while summerising the principles applicable while
dealing with an application for condonation of delay held that,
the concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the
conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally
unfettered free play. The Apex Court held further that, there is
a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short
duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That
apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the
second calls for a liberal delineation. [See: Para.21]
13. In Rafeek and another v. K. Kamarudeen and
another [2021 (4) KHC 34] a Division Bench of this Court
held that, though the expression 'sufficient cause' employed in
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is adequately elastic to
enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner,
which subserves the ends of justice, as held by the Apex Court
in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC
107], the concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the
conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally
unfettered free play, as held by the Apex Court in Esha
Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013)
12 SCC 649]. Inordinate delay, which attracts doctrine of
prejudice, warrants strict approach, whereas, a delay of short
duration or few days, which may not attract doctrine of
prejudice, calls for a liberal delineation. An application for
condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
and no court shall deal with such an application in a routine
manner.
14. The Rent Control Petition is of the year 2005. The
tenant was originally set ex-parte in the year 2007. Thereafter,
for the second time he was set ex-parte in the year 2019.
Though the extend of delay in filing the application to set aside
the ex-parte order of eviction is only 62 days, the default on
the part of the tenant has caused prejudice to the landlord, on
account of the delay in final disposal of R.C.P.No.142 of 2005.
15. Viewed in the light of the law laid in the decisions
referred to supra, we find that the legal heirs of the tenants
can be given an opportunity to contest the Rent Control
Petition on merits, however, on payment of a cost of
Rs.10,000/- to the respondent-landlord.
In such circumstances, these Rent Control Revisions are
disposed of on payment of a cost of Rs.10,000/- by the
petitioners-tenants, payable to the respondent-landlord, within
a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order. On such payment, 62 days delay in filing
RCREV. NOs. 33 & 37 OF 2021
I.A.No.5064 of 2010 will stand condoned and I.A.No.5065 of
2010 will stand allowed, thereby setting aside the ex-parte
order of eviction in R.C.P.No.142 of 2005. Thereafter, the Rent
Control Court shall finally dispose of R.C.P.No.142 of 2005, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three
months.
The petitioners-tenants shall file an application for getting
themselves impleaded in R.C.P.No.142 of 2005 before the Rent
Control Court.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
AS
