LAWS(KER)-2021-11-110

DEEPAK S.P. Vs. B. GOVARDHANAN NAIR

Decided On November 10, 2021
Deepak S.P. Appellant
V/S
B. Govardhanan Nair Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant-respondent in Rent Control Petition No. 11 of 2008 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondents/landlords filed the Rent Control Petition claiming eviction under Sec. 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Petition was allowed on 01.01.2019 ordering eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Act, ex-parte the petitioner. He filed Interlocutory Application No. 952 of 2019 before the Rent Control Court for setting aside the ex-parte order. It was dismissed as per order dated 18.09.2019. That order is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) After dismissal of I.A. No. 952 of 2019, the petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 5 of 2020 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-VI), Thiruvananthapuram. There was a delay of 381 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner filed Interlocutory Application No. 1 of 2020 for condonation of the delay. The Appellate Authority after considering in detail, dismissed that application holding that sufficient cause was not shown to condone the delay. Consequent to the said order, R.C.A. No. 5 of 2020 was dismissed as time barred. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner filed R.C. Revision No. 23 of 2021 before this Court under Sec. 20 of the Act.

(3.) The petitioner would contend that despite the respondents having no objection for allowing Interlocutory Application No. 952 of 2019, the Rent Control Court proceeded to dismiss the petition. The Rent Control court followed the law laid down in Ratheesh v. K.M. Chako [2018 5 KHC 35] that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to the Rent Control proceedings, which was then the valid law, dismissed the petition. The petitioner submitted that having the said decision been overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Hamsa K.K v. Athikottu Snehalatha [2020 (6) KHC 609] the impugned order turned out to be illegal, and therefore, the ex-parte order of eviction dated 01.01.2019 in R.C.P. No. 11 of 2018 is liable to be set aside.