LALITHA Vs. K S PRASANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the tenant in R.C.P. No.70 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur, a petition filed by the respondent landlord for an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short. Though notice was served, the petitioner did not enter appearance before the rent control court with the result, she was set ex-parte and an ex-parte order of eviction was passed on 20-5-2015. More than two years later she filed I.A.No.10921 of 2017 in R.C.P. No.70 of 2013 to set aside the ex-parte order of eviction accompanied by I.A.No.10922 of 2017 to condone the delay of 724 days in filing the former application. Simultaneously she filed R.C.A. No.106 of 2017 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur accompanied by I.A.No.2993 of 2017 to condone the delay of 724 days in filing the appeal and I.A.No.2994 of 2017 praying for stay of execution of the ex-parte order of eviction.

(2.) By then, the landlord had initiated execution proceedings by filing E.P.No.3051 of 2016. The petitioner thereupon entered appearance and filed objections to the execution petition, wherein she, inter alia, contended that R.C.A. No.106 of 2017, filed by her challenging the order of eviction which is sought to be executed, is pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. Overruling her contentions the execution court passed Ext.P9 order dated 03-03-2018 directing delivery of the property on 26-03-2018. The instant original petition was thereupon filed on 22-3-2018 challenging the said order and seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) We heard Sri.Balakrishnan Gopinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Shorn of details, what the petitioner wants is a time bound disposal of the application filed by her in R.C.P. No.70 of 2013 to set aside the ex-parte order of eviction as also a time bound disposal of the interlocutory applications filed in R.C.A. No.106 of 2017 and stay of execution of the order of eviction till the application to set aside the ex-parte order of eviction is disposed of by the rent control court. The petitioner has in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order of eviction as also in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay in filing R.C.A. No.106 of 2017 averred that though she had received notice from the rent control court, she could not take steps to enter appearance and contest the petition for eviction for the reason that she had to look after her ailing husband who is suffering from cardiac ailments. It is stated that he has undergone pacemaker implantation and is totally bedridden.