Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 2386
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.T.SANKARAN, K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JJ
BOBY VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
ALICE ANTONY – Respondent
RENT CONTROL REVISION 308/2016
A delay in filing an appeal without sufficient cause cannot be condoned, as per the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
Headnote:
Revision - Rent Control - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Sections 11(2)(b), 11(4)(i), 11(4)(ii) - Court upheld that the tenant's delay in appeal was not sufficiently explained, hence, the appeals and revisions were dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant faced a Rent Control Petition filed by landlords under various sections of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The tenant remained ex parte, leading to the petition being allowed. The tenant later sought to set aside the ex parte order but filed late applications that were dismissed due to lack of sufficient cause.
Issues: Whether the tenant's delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently justified to warrant condonation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that without sufficient cause, the delay in filing an appeal cannot be condoned, aligning with procedural requirements outlined in the Act.
Final Decision: The Rent Control Revision was dismissed due to lack of merits.
O R D E R
K.T.Sankaran, J.
The revision petitioner was the respondent in R.C.P.No.63 of
2014 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur. The Rent Control Petition was filed by the respondents under Sections 11 (2) (b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The revision petitioner/tenant remained exparte. He did not file any counter also. After examining PW1 and marking Exts.A1 to A4, the Rent Control Court held that the grounds raised have been proved by the landlords. Accordingly, the Rent Control Petition was allowed under (2)(b), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act, as per the order dated 29th August, 2014..
2. The revision petitioner/tenant filed an application to set aside the exparte order. That application was filed out of time and there was a delay of 180 days. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application to set aside the exparte order.
3. The revision petitioner/tenant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur with a petition for condonation of delay. That appeal was dismissed as not pressed. Later, the revision petitioner/tenant filed R.C.A.No.121 of 2016. There was a delay of 686 days in filing the appeal. The Appellate Authority, by a detailed order dated 30.8.2016 in I.A.No.4180 of 2016, dismissed the application for condonation of the delay. It was held that there was no sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly and the delay was not properly explained by the revision petitioner/tenant. Consequent on the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, R.C.A.No.121 of 2016 was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The present Revision is filed by the petitioner/tenant challenging the judgment of the Appellate Authority.
4. After having perused the order passed by the Rent Control Court and the order and judgment passed by the Appellate Authority and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we concur with the view taken by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority. The delay is not properly explained. The Appellate Authority was right in holding that the attempt of the petitioner/tenant was to protract the matter and there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. We do not find any ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Rent Control Court as well as the Appellate Authority.
The Rent Control Revision lacks merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
K. T. Sankaran Judge K. Abraham Mathew Judge ahz/
