Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942 OP (RC).No.145 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03-06-2019 IN I.A NO.213 OF 2017 & I.A NO.3769 OF 2019 IN RCP 144/2013 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN I.A/TENANT : SHINE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN, PANAKKAL HOUSE, BY ADVS.SRI.RAJIT & SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN I.A/LANDLORD : 1 PRABHAKARAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. KITTAPPAN, KALLINGAL HOUSE, 2 LEELA, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. PRABHAKARAN, KALLINGAL HOUSE, O.P (R.C) No.145 of 2019 2 3 SUDHEER, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARANNAIR, MANGARE HOUSE, 4 ROY, S/O. JOSE, AKKARA HOUSE, PERUVALLOOR DESOM, MULLASSERRY VILLAGE, R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN. THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P (R.C) No.145 of 2019 3 A.HARIPRASAD & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J J. -------------------------------------- O.P (R.C) No.145 of 2019 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
A.Hariprasad, J Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.
2. Although service on the third respondent is not complete,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent figures in as in the array of respondents because he was not available to file this petition and there is no conflict of interest between the petitioner and the third respondent.
3. Challenge in this original petition is against Exts.P4 and P5 orders passed by the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad on I.A No.3769 of 2019 in R.C.P No.144 of 2013 and I.A No.213 of 2017 in the same R.C.P.
4. Petitioner is the tenant, who is sought to be evicted by the
respondents under the provisions of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. An ex parte order of eviction was passed against him. He filed an application to set aside the ex parte order with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. Both the applications O.P (R.C) No.145 of 2019 4
were dismissed by the court below on the basis of a decision rendered by this Court in Ratheesh v. A.M.Chacko (2018 (4) KLJ 841). Legality of the decision was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Hamsa.K.K v. Athikottu Snehaletha (F.B) (I.L.R 2020 (4) Kerala 959) and it was found that the decision does not lay down correct law.
Having regard to the change in the legal proposition, we find that the orders passed by the Rent Control Court is not legally sustainable. Therefore, we set aside Exts.P4 and P5 orders. We direct the Rent Control Court to dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE amk O.P (R.C) No.145 of 2019 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF I.A 213/2017 IN RCP CONTROL COURT, CHAVAKKAD FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER HEREIN U/S 23(1)
(h) OF THE KERALA BUILDINGS (LEASE AND
RENT CONTROL ) ACT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN IA 213/2017 IN RCP CONTROL COURT, CHAVAKKAD. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF IA 3769/2019 FILED BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-06-2019 IN IA 3769/2019 IN RCP 144/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03-06-2019 IN IA 213/2017 IN RCP 144/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.