HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
PUTHIYA MALIYAKKAL MINAVER – Appellant
Versus
T.P.RAMLA – Respondent
ORDER
[RCRev.Nos.427/2019, 166/2021, 168/2021]
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The simple issue that has to be considered by this Court is whether the tenant is entitled to seek restitution consequent upon setting aside the ex parte order of eviction.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
The landlord obtained an order of eviction under Section 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 as ex parte. The order of eviction was passed on 14.3.2016, The tenant claimed that she paid rent upto January, 2017. This fact has been denied by the landlord. Notice to the tenant was served on the premises by affixture. The tenant came to know about the ex parte order when delivery was effected on 22.2.2017. Immediately on 25.2.2017, she filed an application to set aside the order. She also filed an application to set aside the ex parte order in execution. Those applications were dismissed. However, her application to set aside the ex parte order was allowed on payment of costs on 29.03.2017. An application for restitution was filed. That application has already been allowed. In the appeals, the Appellate Authority affirmed the orders of the Rent Controller. In these three separate Rent Co
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.