Eviction

ORDER :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The petitioner in these revision petitions is one and the same. She was arrayed as the tenant in R.C.P. No.3 of 2018 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Nedumangad instituted by the respondents under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (the Act). The subject matter of the said proceedings is a shop room attached to a temple. The petitioner denied the title of the landlord in the said proceedings and contended that the eviction petition is, therefore, not maintainable. The sustainability of the said plea of the petitioner was adjudicated as a preliminary issue and as per order dated 25.03.2019, the Rent Control Court held that the plea is not bona fide and that the eviction petition is maintainable. The petitioner had not challenged the said order. The eviction petition was later tried and dismissed on merits.

2. The landlord instituted another proceedings thereafter for eviction of the petitioner as R.C.P. No.4 of 2019 under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(7) of the Act. The petitioner denied the title of the landlord in this proceedings as well, and contended that the eviction petition is not maintainable. The Rent Control Court rejected the said plea as barred by res judicata as per order dated 31.01.2022. The petitioner though challenged the said order in R.C.A. No.5 of 2022, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. R.C.R.No.137 of 2023 is preferred by the petitioner against the said decision of the Appellate Authority.

3. After instituting R.C.A. No.5 of 2022, the petitioner challenged the order dated 25.03.2019 in R.C.P No.3 of 2018 also, in R.C.A. No.14 of 2022. There was a delay of 1160 days in filing the said appeal and the petitioner has therefore preferred an application to condone the said delay as well. The Appellate Authority refused to condone the delay in instituting R.C.A.No.14 of 2022. Consequently, R.C.A. No.14 of 2022 was dismissed. It is aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate Authority that R.C.R. No.153 of 2023 is preferred.

4. Let us first deal with R.C.R. No.153 of 2023. Although the order dated 25.03.2019 in R.C.P. No.3 of 2018 was an appealable order, the petitioner did not challenge the same in appeal on time. Instead, she chose to face the trial of the eviction petition. Of course, the trial ended in the dismissal of the eviction petition. The only reason stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal is that the counsel who preferred R.C.A.No.5 of 2022 on her behalf advised her to prefer an appeal against the order dated 25.03.2019 in R.C.P. No.3 of 2018 also, and it is due to the said reason that the delay occasioned. Subsequent legal advice cannot be accepted as a cause, much less any sufficient cause, to condone the delay in instituting a proceedings in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for if the subsequent legal advice is accepted as the cause to condone the delay in instituting a proceedings, the same would defeat the very object of the Limitation Act, viz, that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature which is a principle founded on public policy. In the said view of the matter, according to us, there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the decision of the Appellate Authority in dismissing the application to condone the delay in filing R.C.A.No.14 of 2022, which culminated in the dismissal of the said appeal.

5. Coming to R.C.R. No.137 of 2023, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the principles of res judicata cannot have any application to the proceedings under the Act and as such, the order dated 25.03.2019 in R.C.P.No.3 of 2018 does not preclude the petitioner from re-agitating the plea of denial of title in the subsequent proceedings. He relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Govindan v. Subaida Beev