PUTHIYA MALIYAKKAL MINAVER Vs. T.P. RAMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The simple issue that has to be considered by this Court is whether the tenant is entitled to seek restitution consequent upon setting aside the ex parte order of eviction.

(2.) The brief facts are as follows: The landlord obtained an order of eviction under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 as ex parte. The order of eviction was passed on 14/3/2016, The tenant claimed that she paid rent upto January, 2017. This fact has been denied by the landlord. Notice to the tenant was served on the premises by affixture. The tenant came to know about the ex parte order when delivery was effected on 22/2/2017. Immediately on 25/2/2017, she filed an application to set aside the order. She also filed an application to set aside the ex parte order in execution. Those applications were dismissed. However, her application to set aside the ex parte order was allowed on payment of costs on 29/3/2017. An application for restitution was filed. That application has already been allowed. In the appeals, the Appellate Authority affirmed the orders of the Rent Controller. In these three separate Rent Control Revisions, the landlord is challenging the order in an application for condonation of delay, the order allowing the application to set aside the ex parte order and also an order allowing the application for restitution.

(3.) Notice was served by affixture. The tenant was not aware of the proceedings before the Rent Controller. It appears that the shop rooms were closed. Notice was served in the address shown in the rent deed which was the residential building, not in the address of the tenanted premises. The landlord's case is that he was not aware of the change of address. Anyway, the court below concurrently found that there was sufficient reason to condone the delay and set aside the ex parte order. It is also noticed that the tenant paid rent even after the order of eviction was passed and the landlord acknowledged the same. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders.