The time for filing an application to set aside an ex parte order runs from the date of knowledge of the order, not the date of receipt of the order, emphasizing the importance of knowledge in the running of time against a person and rectifying defects in legislative drafting to give effect to legislative intent, reason, and justice.

Viswanatha Iyer, J.

Petitioner is the tenant of a residential building belonging to the respondent, thercntbcing.Rs.500/-pcr month. The landlord issued notice of eviction on 21-11-1989 -alleging arrears of rent from 1-6-1988 and claiming vacant possession of the premises on the ground of his bona fide need for own occupation. The tenant - petitioner replied refuting the claim for arrears of rent pointing out that periodical payments had been made and that rent was due only for a lesser period. He also pointed out that the landlord had granted him eleven months time to vacate the house on 20-10-1989, that it was not practicable for him to vacate within the period of one month mentioned in the notice and that he wanted atleast six months more to vacate. He staled that he will not in any case, overstay the eleven months' lime already allowed by the landlord. At the same time, he mentioned that if the landlord chose to go ahead with his petition for eviction he will not have any alternative but to resist the same according to law.

2. The landlord filed the petition for eviction on 10-1-1990. The tenant filed his written statement on 12-11-1990 in which he claimed that he had cleared the rent upto June 1989, and that subsequent payments were not made, only because the landlord's mother refused to receive the rent. He also contended that there was no bona fides in the claim of bona fide need set up by the landlord. He pointed out that he was ready to vacate, provided sufficient time was allowed to complete the religious ceremonies and formalities in connection with the death of his wife on 3rd June, 1990.

3. After the written statement was filed, the matter was posted to 1-12-1990 for trial and then to 14-12-1990, on which date it was ordered to be included in the special list for trial on 8-1-1991. On that date, the tenant-petitioner and his counsel were absent. The landlord was examined, exhibits were marked and the petition for eviction was allowed. This ex parle order was sought to be set aside by the petitioner by filing LA. No. 2444 of 1991 on 22-3-1991 together with an application LA. No. 2443 of 1991 for condonation of the delay of forty three days in filing the said application. Petitioner's case was that he had been informed by his counsel that the case stood adjourned from 14-12-1990 to 8-3-1991. In the meanwhile, he was suffering from hypertension and had been advised bed rest. He was therefore unable to participate in the trial on 8-3-1991. He sent messenger to his advocate on 5-3-1991 to seek an adjournment on 8-3-1991. Accordingly an application was filed for the purpose on 6-3-1991. His advocate waited in court on 8-3-1991 for the case to be called, and knew only then that the case had been disposed of on 6-1-1991 itself. He realised the mistake committed in his office in noting the case as having been posted on 8-3-1991 when actually it had been adjourned to 6-1-1991. The petitioner was informed, and the aforesaid applications were filed. LA. No. 2442 of 1991 was supported by the affidavit of the advocate himself while LA. No. 2(444 of 1991, the other application, was supported by the affidavit of the petitioner.

4. Both these applications were opposed by the landlord. The petitioner examined himself in support of the contentions as set forth in the affidavits of himself and his advocate. But the Rent Control Court held that there was no corroborative evidence regarding the mistake committed in the advocate's office, the advocate's clerk not having been examined. He noted that in the A diary, the posting on 8-1-1991 had been legibly and clearly noted. The case was one included in the special list. The court could not therefore find his way to accept the affidavit or the oral testimony of the petitioner, or the affidavit of the advocate. He held further that Rule 13(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1979 (the rules) required a petition to set aside an ex pane order to be filed within f