SANDHYA Vs. PAULY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is the tenant in RCP.No.10 of 2011 before Rent Control Court, Chalakkudy. That RCP was filed in 2005 before Rent Control Court, Irinjalakkuda for an order of eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4) (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The RCP was transferred to Rent Control Court, Chalakkudy later in 2011. The RCP was listed to 19.12.2011. The petitioner remained absent and after recording the evidence of the respondent landlord and marking the documents, by Ext.P1 order, eviction was ordered on 20.12.2011. The petitioner filed I.A.No.886 of 2012 to set aside the ex parte order of eviction and I.A.No.887 of 2012 to condone the delay of 84 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order. By Ext.P4 order the Rent Controller dismissed both the petitions. The petitioner did not file an appeal, though the order dismissing a petition filed to set aside the ex parte order is an appealable order. Instead, this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) AS this Court issued urgent notice to the respondent landlord, respondent appeared. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent were heard.

(3.) EXT .P3 copy of the petition and affidavit filed before Rent Control Court, to condone the delay and to set aside the ex parte order, establish that even according to the petitioner, she got information of the ex parte order of eviction during the Christmas vacation of 2011. The affidavit shows that she got information of the ex parte order on 31.12.2011. I.A.No.886 of 2012 was filed only on 13.4.2012 after a delay of 84 days. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.886 of 2012 and I.A.No.887 of 2012 shows that the delay was explained by the petitioner contending that her son met with an accident and was admitted in the hospital on 1.1.2012 and only after his plaster was removed, she could meet the counsel and file the application. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that Ext.P5, the discharge summary issued from St. James Hospital, Chalakkudy shows that the son of the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient on 1.1.2012 and was discharged on 2.1.2012. Ext.P5, therefore, shows that the petitioner was at Chalakkudy even on 2.1.2012. Still, the petition was filed only after an inordinate delay on 13.4.2012.