Kerala High Court
K.Narayanan vs Kachayipurayil Rukhiya on 6 September, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
RCREV. NO. 141 OF 2024 1
2024:KER:68965
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 15TH BHADRA, 1946
RCREV. NO. 141 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2024 IN RCA NO.2 OF 2024
OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - II, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF
THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2023 IN RCP NO.145 OF 2020 OF PRINCIPAL
MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
K.NARAYANAN
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O KELU NAIR, SHEEBA ELECTRICALS NEAR ARUN TRADERS,
ASARI COMPANY, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, PUZHATHI DESOM,
CHIRAKKAL P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670011
BY ADVS.
P.S.BINU
K.SEENA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
KACHAYIPURAYIL RUKHIYA
AGED 70 YEARS
D/O MAMMOO, K.P.HOUSE NEAR ARUN TRADERS, ASARI
COMPANY, CHIRAKKAL AMSOM, PUZHATHI DESOM, CHIRAKKAL
P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670011
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV. NO. 141 OF 2024 2
2024:KER:68965
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
While issuing the notice before admission on 18.7.2024, we had
passed the following order:
Inter alia alleges that the appeal has been dismissed on the
ground of delay of 162 days. If at all the petitionertenant had
not been able to explain the delay, the court below could have
imposed certain conditions, but not in the manner and mode
whereby the petitioner-tenant has been permitted to argue the
appeal on the merits of the matter. 2. Issue notice before
admission through special messenger as well as the counsel in
the Trial Court. 3. Petitioner undertakes to clear the arrears or
any cost this Hon'ble court deem it appropriate. Post this matter
on 05.09.2024. Till such time, dispossession of the petitioner-
tenant shall remain stayed.
2. The matter was taken yesterday, awaiting the report of
service on the respondent; nobody appeared and the matter has
been listed for today. Again there is no appearance. The petitioner-
tenant was proceeded ex parte before the learned Rent Controller on
the basis of the statement made by the counsel whereas the learned
Rent Controller in view of the settled law ought to have sent the
notice to the petitioner-tenant. However realizing the
2024:KER:68965
aforementioned ex parte judgment, petitioner-tenant preferred an
appeal bearing No.145 of 2020 along with an application for
condonation of delay of 152 days in preferring the appeal through an
explanation of having not filed appeal within limitation period as
was laid up due to the back pain from 10.7.2023 onwards and for
that was under the Ayurvedic treatment. It is submitted that at the
best, the learned Appellate authority could have condoned the delay
by imposing the cost as the petitioner had not been in arrears of rent
so far. Para 5 of the order reads as under:
As already stated above, the reason stated by the
petitioner/tenant is that he could not contact his lawyer. It is
seen that even he had filed the copy application after five
months. He has no case that only after five months, he came to
know that the petition has been allowed. In that circumstance, it
is to be presumed that he come to know that the petition had
been allowed immediately after its disposal. Nowadays, if he had
any earnest intention to file an appeal against the order he could
have sought his counsel by a phone call to make a copy
application for the order. Also, he has not adduced any evidence
to show that he had undergone treatment for the five months and
that was why the delay was happened. In that circumstance, the
petitioner has failed to satisfy this court that there was sufficient
cause to condone the delay. Hence, the delay condonation
petition is dismissed.
3. On perusal of the same, we are of the view that such a harsh
procedure should not have been followed for rejecting the
2024:KER:68965
application as the other side could have been compensated by
imposition of costs. For the reason aforementioned, the order dated
17.2.2024 of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal as well as
the application for condonation of delay is set aside. The delay is
condoned. The appeal is ordered to be restored to original number.
The appellate authority is directed to decide the case in accordance
with law, as expeditiously as possible, subject to payment of cost of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the respondent- landlord.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
sab EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
