Back
2009 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4733
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ
V.G.GOPINATHA PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
JAYA RANI – Respondent
WP(C)/19122/2009
SRI.TOM JOSE
The court confirmed that tenants have a right to timely consideration of petitions against eviction orders, emphasizing procedural fairness.
Headnote:
Eviction - Tenant Rights - Article 227 - Court Procedures - Delivery Adjournment
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged an ex-parte eviction order and filed petitions to set it aside and for condoning delay, fearing immediate delivery of possession before his petitions could be heard.
Issues: Whether the execution of the eviction order should be stayed pending hearings of the petitions filed by the tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the importance of timely legal consideration for petitions filed regarding eviction orders, emphasizing procedural fairness for tenants even in ex-parte situations.
Final Decision: Adjourned delivery of possession to allow court to hear tenant's petitions.
JUDGMENT
Pius C. Kuriakose, J In the nature of the limited relief which is being given to the petitioner, we are of the view that it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent/landlady.
2. The petitioner in this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 is the tenant and Ext.P4 order of eviction has been passed ex parte against him. On coming to know about Ext.P4, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 petition for setting aside the ex parte order and Ext.P8 petition seeking condonation of delay of 220 days caused in the matter of filing Ext.P7. Apart from that, Ext.P9 stay petition is also filed seeking stay of execution proceedings. The Rent Control Court has posted Exts.P7, P8 and P9 to 17/07/09. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that in the meanwhile, the learned Munsiff who is executing Ext.P4 has ordered delivery. The case of the petitioner is that if delivery happens to take place on 17/07/09, the date to which it is posted, Exts.P7, P8 and P9 will become infructuous. Learned counsel submits that even though copies of Exts.P7, P8 and P9 were served on the Advocate who is appearing for the landlady in the Rent Control Court and the learned Advocate received the copies, the Rent Control Court has issued notice to the respondent and that is why the petitioner is unable to obtain interim order of stay in the matter.
3. We are of the view that without going into the merits of the grounds raised in Ext.P7 application to set aside the ex parte order, this Writ Petition can be disposed of issuing the following directions:-
1) If the counsel for the respondent before the Rent Control Court has already taken notice of Exts.P7, P8 and P9 as claimed by the petitioner, the Rent Control Court will dispose of Ext.P7 or at least Ext.P8 at the earliest, at any rate within two weeks of receiving copy of the judgment. If the learned court finds difficulty in disposing of Ext.P7 or even Ext.P8 within the time frame, at least interim orders will be passed on Ext.P9 stay petition within the above time frame.
4. Considering the above directions, delivery pursuant to the order passed by the execution court will stand adjourned to 31st instant.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. Q. BARKATH ALI JUDGE kns/-
