SAJEEVAN SWAMY Vs. JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner suffered an ex parte order of eviction [Ext.R2(a)] dtd. 31/1/2015 under Sec. 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 ('the Act', for short). On 18/02/2015, he filed an application to set aside the ex parte order. As the said application was filed without a petition to condone the delay, the court dismissed the application by Ext.P4 order. The court also rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order i.e., the petitioner was under the impression that the matter would be settled by the opposite party.

(2.) The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order. He alleges that the appeal was transferred to the Additional District Court, Irinjalakkuda from the District Court, Thrissur and it was not intimated to the petitioner and consequently, the appeal was dismissed for default. In the meantime, the person who initiated the rent control proceedings died, and the petitioner was unable to trace out the details of his legal heirs. As a result, the application submitted by the petitioner for readmitting the appeal was also dismissed for default, it is contended. Resultantly, he filed a petition to condone the delay of 1535 days for restoring the application for readmitting the appeal, and it was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority as per Ext.P12 order on the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to condone the delay.

(3.) The present original petition is filed against Ext.P12 order contending that the delay occasioned as mentioned above was not purposeful and, hence, the petitioner should be permitted to contest the matter on merit.