VIMALA DEVI Vs. NARAYANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner was the petitioner in RCP 21 of 1979 filed before the Rent Control Court, Muvattupuzha, for eviction of the respondent and his brother from a building which was taken on rent from the petitioner. The respondent was the 2nd respondent therein and his brother, the 1st respondent. Though notice was served, neither of the respondents appeared for hearing on the date fixed. The petition was thereafter posted to 26-6-1979 for petitioner's evidence. An ex parte order of eviction was passed on the evidence given by the petitioner. The petitioner took out execution. Then the present respondent alone, filed an application to set aside the ex parte order passed against him on 18-2-1980, as I. A. No. 456 of 1980. This application was resisted by the petitioner on two grounds (1) the application was barred by limitation not having been filed within 15 days of the passing of the eviction order and (2) that there were no sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte order. The Rent Control Court held against the plea of limitation. It agreed with the petitioner's; case of absence of sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte order and hence dismissed the petition.

(2.) Aggrieved by this order, the respondent filed RCA No. 52 of 1980. The appellate authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Control Court that sufficient grounds were not made out to set aside the ex parte order and left open the question of limitation. In revision, the District Court held against the petitioner on the question of limitation and set aside the finding regarding absence of grounds and remitted the case back to the Rent Control Court, Muvattupuzha, for fresh enquiry and disposal on the ground that the respondent was not given sufficient opportunity to make available to the Court necessary evidence in support of his plea that he could not be present on the hearing date. It is this order of the revisional Court that is under challenge in this revision petition.

(3.) The petitioner's counsel submits that the Court below committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in holding that there was no bar of limitation and also in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact that sufficient grounds were not made out to allow the application. The respondent's counsel meets the plea of limitation with the submission that the revisional Court should not have allowed the plea of limitation to be raised since the petitioner did not file an appeal against the finding on the question of limitation by the Rent Control Court. According to him, the revisional Court had only given an opportunity to the respondent to adduce fresh evidence to prove the case put forward by him and this can never be characterised as a finding tainted with jurisdictional error.