ABDUL AZEEZ Vs. SHAREEFA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant in a Rent Control Petition filed under S.11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (for short 'The Act') is the petitioner in this revision. The landlady, who filed the RCP, is the respondent. Respondent is the step mother of the petitioner.

(2.) As the respondent in the RCP, petitioner has filed a detailed counter affidavit disputing the bona fides and opposing the prayer for eviction. The Rent Control Petition, which was filed in 1980, was ultimately included in the special list and posted for enquiry to 2.1.1992. However, on 2.1.1992, it was adjourned for reporting settlement 'finally' to 7.1.1992. But on that day petitioner remained absent. It would appear that counsel appearing for the petitioner also reported 'no instructions' on that day. As such, after declaring the petitioner, ex parte, the Rent Control Court examined the landlady as PW 1 and marked Exts. A1 and A2 as evidence on her side. After accepting the evidence adduced by the landlady, an order of eviction was passed under S.11(3) of the Act finding that the need alleged by the landlady is genuine. Thereafter, petitioner filed IA 368 of 1992 for setting aside the ex parte order alleging that he was prevented from appearing in Court as he was advised to take complete bed rest. Along with the petition, the petitioner seems to have produced a certificate issued by Dr. A.K. Sreedharan stating that the petitioner had a mio-cardiac infraction and he was advised to take bed rest. While the application for setting aside the ex parte was pending, the petitioner also filed an appeal against the order under S.18 of the Act which was numbered as R.C.A. 25 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Court), Palakkad. After filing the appeal, the petitioner got the application for setting aside the ex parte order dismissed as not pressed. The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal finding no merit in it as per the impugned order. 'Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner has filed this revision under S.20 of the Act.

(3.) Apart from the formal grounds, the two substantive grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority are the following: