IMPORTANT POINTS
• The appellate court's power to condone delay in filing an appeal by relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an independent power conferred on it de hors the original authority's lack of power for condonation of delay-Appellate Authority under the Act is a District Judge with full-fledged powers vested in a District Court to which the entire Code applies-Among other provisions, Section 5 of the Limitation Act also applies to the Appellate Authority with full vigour
• The power to be exercised by the Appellate Officer is not in his capacity as persona designata but as a judicial officer of the pre-existing Court.

1. The cardinal question commonly arising in the captioned cases is whether the Appellate Authority, constituted under Section 18 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, the Act) has power to condone delay in filing an appeal by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, the Limitation Act). A similar doubt raised earlier had been dispelled when the Supreme Court pronounced a judgment in Mukri Gopalan vs. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, AIR 1995 SC 2272. But, now it appears that the doubt has resurrected in the minds of some learned Judges who disposed of the appeals involved in these cases on the basis of a pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court in Ratheesh vs. A.M. Chacko and Another, 2018 (5) KHC 35, which in turn relied on M.P. Steel Corporation vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2015 (7) SCC 58.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and contesting respondents.

3. We shall narrate the relevant facts in brief: R.C.R. No. 262 of 2019 is filed by the tenants/respondents in R.C.P. No. 8 of 2014 before the Rent Control Court, Adoor, who suffered an order of eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act. The order passed by the Rent Control Court was challenged in R.C.A. No. 6 of 2018 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pathanamthitta. The revision petitioners approached the Appellate Authority beyond the prescribed time and they filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority took a view that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings before it and hence the petition was dismissed. Consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.

4. Revision petitioners in R.C.R. Nos. 218, 221 and 239 of 2019 are the tenants sought to be evicted under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act by a common landlord in R.C.P. No. 4 of 2012 before the Rent Control Court, Thiruvalla. The Rent Control Court allowed eviction in favour of the landlord, against which the revision petitioners approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Pathanamthitta with R.C.A. Nos. 12, 11 and 13 of 2018. In these cases too, they approached the Appellate Authority beyond the prescribed time and they therefore filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Those applications were dismissed by the Appellate Authority expressing a view that it has no power to condone delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

5. R.C.R. No. 41 of 2019 is filed by the tenant/respondent in R.C. (OP) No. 2 of 2015 before the Rent Control Court, Kottarakkara. Revision petitioner suffered an order of eviction under Section 12(3) of the Act against which he preferred an appeal after expiry of the prescribed period and for that reason the Appellate Authority refused to entertain the appeal.

6. Banking on the ratio in Ratheesh's case, the Rent Control Appellate Authorities entered a finding that they cannot invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matter of condoning delay in filing appeals against the orders passed by the Rent Control Courts. In view of their stance, it is essential to consider the scope and ambit of the ratio in Ratheesh's case.

7. Facts in Ratheesh's case show that the petitioner before this Court suffered an ex-parte order of eviction at the hands of the Rent Control Court and he moved an application to get the ex-parte order set aside. But there was some delay in filing the said application. He therefore moved another application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The respondent argued that the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings before the Rent Control Courts. Placing reliance mainly on M.P. Steel Corporation's case, the Division Bench in Ratheesh's case held that the Rent Control Court has no power to condone delay going by the provisions in the Act and the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979 (in short, the Rules)