MOORYANTAKATH MUHAMMED HARIS Vs. M.RAFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the tenant-respondent in R.C.P.No.101 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Kannur. The petition for eviction filed by the respondent-landlord under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, was allowed by the Rent Control Court as per the order dtd. 11/8/2014. The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 18(1)(b) of the Act was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-II), Thalassery, as per the judgment dtd. 11/4/2018. Aggrieved by the said order and the judgment, this Revision has been filed under Sec. 20 of the Act.

(2.) On 11/11/2020, notice was ordered to be served on the respondent. The order of eviction was stayed for a period of two weeks initially. That order was extended from time to time. Notice could not be served on the respondent personally. The notice was returned with an endorsement "not known". An Execution Petition in the matter is pending, and therefore, on 23/11/2020, the petitioner was allowed to serve notice to the respondent through his counsel appearing before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Kannur, where the Execution Petition is pending. Accordingly, notice was given to the counsel of the respondent and a memo to that effect was filed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent, however, did not choose to appear before the court.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that due service of notice on the respondent was liable to be recorded since the notice was given to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent before the court below, as contemplated in Rule 59 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971. In order to address on that question, this Court appointed Advocate Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, a counsel appearing before this Court as Amicus Curiae. The Amicus Curiae, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Manual v. Thomas [1977 KLT 567] and Geetha Panicker v. Lagi Easo Mathew and others [2003 (3) KLT 454] submitted that the service of notice on the counsel of the respondent, who continues to appear for the respondent before the court below, is sufficient notice. However, on the failure of the respondent to enter appearance despite giving such a notice, it is only appropriate to give notice directly to the party insofar as for a counsel to appear in the matter pending before the High Court, he has to file a separate Vakalath.