FAISAL Vs. VIKAS CHACKO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common challenge in the captioned cases is against the ratio in Ratheesh v. A.M.Chacko and another (2018 (4) KLT Online 2055 = 2018(5) KHC 35) rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein it is held that the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short 'the Limitation Act') is not applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Control Court, constituted under Section 3 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act').

(2.) We heard the learned counsel, who challenge the ratio in Ratheesh's case (supra) as well as those learned counsel, who support the ratio.

(3.) Before going into various legal issues raised, we shall first consider the facts in Ratheesh's case. First respondent in Ratheesh's case filed an eviction petition before the Rent Control Court, seeking eviction of the second respondent from three rooms. The petitioner before this Court is the second respondent, who suffered an ex parte order of eviction at the hands of the Rent Control Court. He moved an application to get the ex parte order set aside as per R.13(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979 (in short 'the Rules'). The application should have been filed within 15 days from the date of order. In Ratheesh's case, the application for setting aside the ex parte order was filed beyond the prescribed time and therefore an application for condonation of delay was also filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was contended before the Rent Control Court that Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be applied in a proceeding before the Rent Control Court. That contention was accepted in the light of the ratio in M.P Steel Corporation v. Commissioner Of Central Excise. (2015 (2) KLT 996 (SC) = (2015) 7 SCC 58). In the appellate court also, the second respondent did not succeed. Hence, he approached this Court with a Rent Control Revision. Here, ratio in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker. (1995 (2) KLT 205 (SC) = (1995) 5 SCC 5) was considered. In that case, the Apex Court held that under Section 18 of the Act, the appellate authority, being a District Judge and the Act being a special law by application of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, all the provisions in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act would apply to a proceedings before the Appellate Authority. In that context, in Mukri Gopalan's case it was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to proceedings before the appellate authority under the Act. However, no pronouncement was made therein regarding the power of the Rent Control Court to apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act to proceedings before it.