Point of law : order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, on an application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, should give brief reasons for arriving at a conclusion that the appellants have shown ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, after adverting to the contentions raised in the objection filed by the respondents, showing proper application of mind.

ORDER :

1. The revision petitioners are the respondents in R.C.A. No. 39 of 2018 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam (District Judge, Kollam), arising out of the order of the Additional Rent Control Court, Kollam in R.C.P. No. 2 of 2013, an application filed by them under Sections 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 seeking eviction of the respondents herein from the petition schedule building bearing Nos. 921 and 927, which form part of a two storied commercial building situated at Kottiyam Junction, in the land comprised in Re. Sy. No. 314/44, Block No. 27 of Thazhuthala Village. Before the Rent Control Court, R.C.P. No. 2 of 2013 was tried along with the connected matters, i.e. R.C.P. Nos. 20 of 2014 and 21 of 2014. By a common order dated 28.01.2019, the Rent Control Court allowed R.C.P. No. 2 of 2013, ordering eviction of the respondents from the petition schedule property, under Section 11(3) of the Act. The relief under Section 11(8) of the Act was not pressed and therefore, the Rent Control Court disallowed relief under Section 11(8).

2. Challenging the order of eviction in R.C.P. No. 2 of 2013, the respondents herein filed R.C.A. No. 39 of 2018 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam, along with I.A. No. 2089 of 2018, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of 2 days delay in filing that appeal. That application was supported by an affidavit sworn to by the 1st appellant, who is the 1st respondent herein. The revision petitioners, who are the respondents before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, filed their objection to the application for condonation of delay. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by the order dated 28.01.2019 in I.A. No. 2089 of 2018, condoned the delay of 2 days in filing R.C.A. No. 39 of 2018. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court in this revision petition filed under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.

3. On 25.06.2019, when this revision petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice on admission by speed post to the respondents.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of the delay condonation application, i.e. I.A. No. 2089 of 2018 along with a copy of the objection.

5. The issue that arises for consideration in this revision petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on the order dated 28.01.2019 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority in I.A. No. 2089 of 2018, whereby the delay of 2 days in filing R.C.A. No. 39 of 2018 stands condoned.

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend that, though the extent of delay is only 2 days, the Rent Control Appellate Authority committed a grave mistake in condoning the delay, in the absence of any sufficient cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 2089 of 2018, which is one sworn to by the 1st appellant/the 1st respondent herein. The affidavit does not contain specific pleadings as to his alleged illness, nature of treatment, etc. or any sufficient cause which prevented the 2nd appellant/the 2nd respondent herein from filing the appeal in time. The Appellate Authority has not even adverted to the contentions raised in that regard, in the objection filed by the revision petitioners.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that, though the Appellate Authority, while condoning the delay of 2 days in filing R.C.A. No. 39 of 2018 has not adverted to the contentions raised by the revision petitioners in their objection to I.A. No. 2089 of 2018, in the impugned order dated 28.01.2019 the Appellate Authority has stated that the respondents herein had shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Considering the fact that the ex