THULASIDAS Vs. SECRETARY, METRO PALACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant came up with this Rent Control Revision challenging the order passed in R.C.A. No.23/2016 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. It was filed against the verdict rendered by the Rent Control Court on two Interlocutory Applications - I.A.Nos.10680/2015 and 10681/2015. One was filed for setting aside an ex parte order passed on 8/7/2014 and another one was filed for condoning the delay occasioned in preferring the above said application. Both the applications were dismissed by the Rent Control Court as not maintainable, in view of the final order passed on 13/10/2014. It was taken up in the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. Subsequently, two petitions were filed in I.A. No.249/2015 to review the order dated 8/12/2014 and I.A.No.248/2015 to condone the delay in filing I.A.No.249/2015. Those applications were dismissed by the Rent Control Court on 26/3/2015. Subsequently another application in I.A.No.10680/2015 was filed for setting aside the final ex parte order with a petition in I.A.No.10681/2015 to condone the delay, which were also dismissed by the Rent Control Court, against which R.C.A.No.23/2016 was preferred before the Rent Control Court, Ernakulam. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Rent Control Court by its order dated 9/6/2017, against which this Rent Control Revision is filed.

(2.) The case was originally posted on 18/6/2014 for the appearance of the tenant/respondent. The tenant/respondent appeared on the same day and filed Vakkalath and sought adjournment. On that day, there was no sitting and hence it was adjourned to 19/6/2014, on the next day. Then, it was adjourned to 8/7/2014 for filing objection. But, no objection was filed by the tenant and hence the tenant was set ex parte and the Rent Control Court proceeded with the matter further adjourning the case to 18/7/2014 for adducing ex parte evidence. Then, it was adjourned to 14/8/2014. On 14/8/2014, there was a submission from the side of the tenant that they are going to file an application for setting aside the ex parte order. So, it was adjourned to 29/8/2014 for counter to the said application. But, on 29/8/2014, when the case was taken up, it was revealed that no such application was submitted by the tenant. So, the case was again adjourned to 27/9/2014 on the request of the landlord/petitioner. On 27/9/2014, it was adjourned as there was no application submitted by the respondent/tenant. Then, on 9/10/2014 ex parte evidence was recorded and it was ultimately disposed of on 13/10/2014, granting an ex parte order of eviction.

(3.) It is thereafter, applications were filed in I.A.No.8116/2014 for the purpose of setting aside the earlier ex parte order dated 8/7/2014 and I.A.No.8117/2014 for condoning the delay in filing the application, ignoring the final ex parte order passed on 13/10/2014. There is a lot of difference between an ex parte order and an ex parte decree. An ex parte order can be set aside at any time, before the culmination of proceedings in that court, either by a decree or by a final order. When there is a final order or decree, the earlier ex parte order passed would stand as perjury ex parte decree or ex parte final order, as the case may be. So, the said applications were dismissed by the trial court rightly holding that these two applications are not maintainable in view of the final order passed on 13/10/2014. It is thereafter, instead of filing an application for setting aside the final ex parte order dated 13/10/2014, the tenant, after too, filed another two applications in I.A.Nos.10680/2015 for reviewing the earlier order with an application in I.A.No. 10681/2015 to condone the delay. The action/conduct of the tenant in preferring these two applications would tell upon what is behind it. Those two applications were also dismissed by the trial court as there was no apparent error on the face of the record, which would attract a review of the earlier order. It is thereafter, the tenant, after too, filed proper applications in I.A. Nos.248/2014 to review the order dated 8/12/2014, along with an application in I.A. No.249/2014 for condoning the delay.