Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5584
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HARILAL, A.M.BABU, JJ
K.C.FIROS – Appellant
Versus
SUDHA SUNDARESHAN – Respondent
OP (RC) 194 2017
SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI, SMT.T.RASINI
Timely judicial consideration is essential to protect tenant rights against ex parte eviction orders.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenant Rights - Article 227 - Summary of Tenant Relief Mechanism
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, faced an ex parte eviction order and sought to challenge it through various applications, which were dismissed due to non-compliance and defaults. He requested the court to expedite consideration of a petition related to the eviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the urgency of the case, emphasizing the necessity for the Rent Control Court to promptly address the eviction petition to avoid undue hardship to the tenant.
Issues: Whether the execution of the eviction order should be stayed until the Rent Control Court considers the petition submitted by the tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision highlighted the need for timely access to justice for tenants facing eviction, ensuring their petitions are addressed without unnecessary delays.
Final Decision: The court directed the Rent Control Court to dispose of the eviction petition within two weeks and stayed further execution pending that decision.
JUDGMENT
Harilal, J.
1.The petitioner is the tenant against whom an ex parte order of eviction has been passed in RCP.206/2015 by the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Koyhikode. Aggrieved by the said order, though he had filed I.A.4321/2016 to set aside the said ex parte order and the same was allowed on conditions, he could not comply with the conditions and thereby the said IA was also dismissed. The petitioner again filed RP IA. 531/2017. But the said IA was also dismissed on default. Then the petitioner again filed I.A.1803/2017 to restore RP IA.531/2017 along with an application to condone delay in filing the same and the said I.A was adjourned to 22.7.2017. But in the meanwhile, the learned Munsiff got transferred and thereafter there is OP(RC).194/17 no sitting in the said court. In the meantime, the respondent has proceeded with execution of the ex parte order of eviction by Ext.P2 petition and now delivery has been ordered and the officials are taking hasty steps to effect delivery. If delivery is effected before considering Ext.P2 application, the petitioner will be put to great difficulty and hardship.
2.On the above premise, the petitioner has preferred this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Rent Control Court to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 within a specified time and to stay the execution of the ex parte decree till the disposal of Ext.P2.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4.Considering the facts and circumstances, we find that Ext.P2 requires disposal at the earliest. Consequently the Rent Control Court is directed to dispose of Ext.P2 within a period of two OP(RC).194/17 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and all further execution proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 will stand deferred till the disposal of Ext.P2 petition.
K.HARILAL Judge
