RAJAMMA, Vs. RAJAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We notice elements of genuineness in the grievance voiced by the petitioners, who are tenants. The order of eviction was passed against them by the Rent Control Court under Sec. 11(2)(b). Their endeavour to get the order vacated under Sec. 11(2)(c) was unsuccessful. They have preferred two appeals Exts.P3 and P4 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kozhikode. Since the appeals were not filed on time, they have preferred Exts.P5 and P6 petitions seeking condonation of the delay of 150 days. It is submitted that on account of the delay, the learned Appellate Authority did not become inclined to pass orders of interim stay of execution. It is submitted that the learned Munsiff, who is presently executing the eviction order, has passed an order that unless a stay order is produced on or before 30/8/2010, the building will be ordered to be delivered over.

(2.) Having regard to the grounds raised in the writ petition and the appealing submissions of Sri. P.A. Harish, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, we are of the view that limited relief can be given to the petitioners even without issuing notice to the respondents. We dispose of the writ petition at this stage itself issuing the following directions;