ROY Vs. PUTHENPALLI DHANAVARDHANA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is preferred against the judgment in RCA No.16 of 2019 dtd. 9/2/2023 of the Additional District Judge and Rent Control Appellate Authority, North Paravur, which arose from the order in RCP No.37 of 2010 dtd. 28/7/2018 of the Rent Control Court, North Paravur. By the impugned order of the appellate authority, an application to condone a delay of 374 days in filing RCA No.16 of 2019 was dismissed. Consequently, RCA No.16 of 2019 was also dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner was the tenant in RCP No.37 of 2010 against whom an eviction order was passed on 28/7/2018. It was the contention of the petitioner that he was under the impression that the said order was an ex-parte order and so he filed IA No.1826 of 2018 before the Rent Control Court to set aside the ex-parte order and he was prosecuting the said application bonafide under the said belief that the ex-parte order would be set aside. However, the Rent Control Court by order dtd. 9/8/2012 dismissed IA No.1826 of 2018 finding that the order of eviction dtd. 28/7/2018 was not an ex-parte order and that it was passed on merits. Thereafter petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order dtd. 28/7/2018 and preferred the appeal with a delay of 374 days. The appellate authority found that the order of eviction dtd. 28/7/2018 was not an ex-parte order and that it had considered the evidence adduced by both sides after granting sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. In such circumstances, the appellate authority did not accept the contention of the petitioner that he was bonafidely prosecuting the application to set aside the ex-parte order and held that the intention of the petitioner was to drag the matter and postpone the eviction to the maximum extent. Thus finding that the reason put forth for condoning the delay is not satisfactory, IA No.772 of 2019, the delay condonation application leading to the dismissal of RCA No.16 of 2019.

(3.) Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.M.Prem, argues that they did not get an opportunity to contest the case on merit. It is also his argument that the Rent Control Court had ordered eviction relying on a report of the Advocate Commissioner which was filed in another case, which is totally wrong.