Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5550
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
A.V.FRANCIS – Appellant
Versus
FINE ARTS SOCIETY – Respondent
RCRev. 209/2022
P.B. KRISHNAN, P.B. SUBRAMANYAN, JIPSON ANTONY, MANU VYASAN PETER, SABU GEORGE, PLEASANT T SAMUEL (CAVEATOR)
A tenant must present valid reasons for delay in challenging eviction orders, or such applications may be dismissed.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenant - Rent Control Act - Sections Involved: Not Specified - The court upheld the eviction order, citing the tenant's failure to provide valid reasons for delay and insufficient justification for setting aside the ex-parte eviction order.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant was evicted ex-parte for rent arrears and filed to set aside the eviction noting a 467-day delay which was not condoned by the Rent Controller.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate authority affirmed the Rent Controller's decision, indicating no sufficient reason was provided to condone the delay or maintain the application to set aside the ex-parte decision.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing to set aside the ex-parte order could be condoned and if there was sufficient reason for the tenant's late application.
Ratio Decidendi: The necessity of providing a valid reason for delay and maintaining the integrity of eviction procedures in the context of rent arrears was emphasized, leading to the dismissal of the revision.
Final Decision: The revision petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J The tenant is before us. He was set ex- parte in a petition for eviction. The eviction was sought under the ground of rent arrears and bona fide needs. The Rent Control Court, on being satisfied with the ground of eviction, allowed the petition for eviction. The tenant, thereafter, filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order along with an application to condone the delay of 467 days. The Rent Controller dismissed the application. The Rent Controller noted that the tenant had received notice and not chosen to appear. The tenant approached the Rent Controller only after receiving notice in the Execution Petition. It is also noted that the petition to set aside the ex-parte order was filed after lapse of more than three months after receipt of the notice in Execution Petition. Absolutely there was no reason stated to condone the delay. Accordingly, the Rent Controller dismissed the application.
2. In appeal also the Appellate Authority found that there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay. The Appellate Authority also further noted that the application to condone the delay was not maintainable before the Rent Control Court. We are not entering into the controversy relating to the power of the Rent Controller to condone the delay to set aside the ex-parte order. Be that it may, we find no reason in this matter to condone the delay. It has been pointed out the learned counsel for the landlord, Rs.9,25,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Five Lakh only) is due towards the rent arrears.
3. On last occasion, we orally asked to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner whether the revision petitioner is volunteering to pay the rent arrears to show some leniency to him in this matter. However, today the answer is negative. We are of the view that there is bona fides in the application filed by the tenant to condone the delay as well as the application to set aside the ex-parte order. No interference is warranted, invoking revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
