An eviction order under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act must demonstrate the court's satisfaction regarding the landlord's bona fide claim, even in ex-parte proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

P. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner suffered an ex-parte order of eviction [Ext.R2(a)] dated 31.01.2015 under section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (‘the Act’ for short). On 18/02/2015, he filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order. As the said application was filed without a petition to condone the delay, the court dismissed the application by Ext.P4 order. The court also rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order i.e. the petitioner was under the impression that the matter would be settled by the opposite party.

2. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order. He alleges that the appeal was transferred to the Additional District Court, Irinjalakkuda from the District Court, Thrissur and it was not intimated to the petitioner and consequently, the appeal was dismissed for default. In the meantime, the person who initiated the rent control proceedings died, and the petitioner was unable to trace out the details of his legal heirs. As a result, the application submitted by the petitioner for readmitting the appeal was also dismissed for default, it is contended. Resultantly, he filed a petition to condone the delay of 1535 days for restoring the application for readmitting the appeal, and it was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority as per Ext.P12 order on the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to condone the delay.

3. The present original petition is filed against Ext.P12 order contending that the delay occasioned as mentioned above was not purposeful and, hence, the petitioner should be permitted to contest the matter on merit.

4. Heard Sri. G. Sreekumar (Chelur), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. R. Rajesh Kormath, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. Sri. G. Sreekumar (Chelur) submitted that the person who originally initiated the rent control proceedings had no title to the property as Ext.P2 sale deed in his name is not a genuine document and that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between him and the respondents. Even according to the purported landlord’s account, the petitioner was put in possession of the building on the very day the sale deed was executed, based on an oral rental arrangement. This fact alone exposes the falsity of his claim, it is urged.

6. Refuting the above submissions, Sri. R. Rajesh Kormath submitted that the petitioner has no bona fides and he has filed the present petition in collusion with his wife, who had executed the sale deed in favour of the predecessor in interest of the present respondents. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioner moved the court by waking up from his slumber only when the execution petition was filed, and thus, there is no reason to condone the delay of nearly five years.

7. After considering the submissions of both sides and the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court, we find no apparent illegality in the said orders. The records reveal that the petitioner failed to diligently contest the matter. Furthermore, the explanation offered for condoning the delay is unconvincing. Nevertheless, we remain cognizant of the consistent stand of this court on condoning delay. As a general principle, delay will be condoned unless it smacks malafide and the parties will be permitted to raise their contentions on merit, provided the opposing party is adequately compensated for the losses incurred due to the delay.

8. We would have left the matter here by setting aside the impugned order on cost but for a grave irregularity that caught our attention. Significantly, Ext.R2(a), the ex-parte order of eviction, reveals that the Rent Control Court allowed the application with no discussion of the merits of the materials presented before the court. After summarizing the contents of the eviction petition, the court passed the order in the following lines:

“3. Respondent f