The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rent Control Court has the jurisdiction to set aside ex parte orders and to entertain petitions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay caused in filing the application, and it should consider such petitions on merits and dispose of them in accordance with the law.

Sreedharan J.

This is a petition filed under Art.227 of the Constitution. Petitioner is a tenant of shop rooms bearing door Nos.KP8/573 and 574 of Kumbala Panchayat owned by the first respondent. According to him, he took the shop rooms on a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- in the year 1950. While so, first respondent filed RCP No. 17/86 before the second respondent - the Rent Controller for recovery of the building as per the provisions contained in Section 11(2),11(3),11(4)(ii) and 11(4)(iv) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act here-in-after referred to as the Act. On receipt of notice from the Rent Control Court, petitioner- the tenant filed Ext. P2 written statement of defence. He disputed the claim of the landlord that the rent is in arrears, that the landlord required the building bonafide for his own occupation, that the tenant is using the building in such a manner as to destroy or reduce its value or utility permanently and that the building needs reconstruction. The case stood posted in the special list for trial to 23-11-1988. When the matter came up for trial on that day, petitioner's counsel reported no instruction. Consequently, the Rent Control' Court adjourned the case to 24-11-1988. On that day the landlord was examined and on the basis of that evidence, Rent Control Petition was decided in favour of the landlord. The tenant was served with a copy of that order. Immediately thereafter he filed LA. No. 464/1989 praying for setting aside the ex parte order and to afford the tenant a reasonable opportunity of let in evidence. Since that petition was filed beyond the time prescribed under the Rule, he moved LA No. 463/1989 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay caused in filing the petition to set aside the order. The Rent Control Court dismissed the petition under 35 of the Limitation Act. on the view that Section 5 is not applicable to rent control proceedings. In this view the application to set aside the ex parte order was dismissed holding that it was filed beyond the time prescribed as per the Rules. As per the Rules, a petition to set aside the ex parte order has to be made within 15 days. Aggrieved by the above orders passed by the Rent Control Court, tenant has come up with this original petition under Art.227 of the Constitution.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this original petition is whether the Rent Control Court was justified in dismissing the applications filed by the tenant for setting aside the ex parte decision and for condoning the delay caused in filing that application without considering them on merits. Section 23 of the Act makes certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings before the Rent Control Court. Clause 1(h) of that Section provides that the Rent Control Court has the powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte orders. The provision of the Code of Civil Procedure mentioned therein is that contained in Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. Clause 2 of Order 9 Rule 13 as per the Kerala Amendment makes Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to applications for setting aside ex parte orders passed against the defendant/ respondent. A combined reading of Section 23(1)(h) of the Act and Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that a respondent in a proceeding before the Rent Control Court has got the right to get the ex parte order set aside and in exercise of that right if delay has been occassioned a petition under Section 5 of the Limitations Act can be filed and the Rent Control Court is bound to entertain that application on merits. In other words, when a respondent in a Rent Control Proceedings files an application for setting aside an ex parte order passed against him together with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay caused therein, the Rent Control Court should consider that petition on merits and is bou