The judgment affirmed the inclusivity of tenant definitions and recognized the authority of agents in rent control disputes, emphasizing sufficient cause for absence as a valid ground to challenge eviction orders.

ORDER

Mohammed Nias.C.P. J The above revision is preferred by the landlord-revision petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.7.2022 in RCA No.5 of 2021 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta, Wayanad, affirming the order dated 31.8.2021 in RPIA No.1536 of 2021 in RCP No.1 of 2019 of the Rent Control Court, Kalpetta, allowing an application filed by the tenants to set aside the exparte decree passed against them.

2. The revision petitioner-landlord filed RCP No.1 of 2019 under Sections

11(2)(b), 11(3), and 11(4)(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The tenants-respondents herein were set exparte on 5.12.2019, and an exparte order of eviction was passed on 12.10.2019 under Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Act. The second respondent herein filed RPIA No.1536 of 2021 seeking to set aside the exparte eviction order contending that the first respondent had also authorised him to file the same on his behalf. It was contended that the second respondent could not appear on 5.12.2019 owing to severe headache and hypertension and that the first respondent was out of station. The application to set aside the exparte order was resisted by the landlord contending that the first respondent cannot legally authorize the second respondent to file an application as he is only an employee under the first respondent and that there is no sufficient cause for allowing the application. The Rent Control Court found that the definition of 'tenant' under Section 2(6) of the Act takes in a sub-tenant as well who had also paid rent. Relying on the judgment of this Court inAppukuttan v. Rent Controller [ 1987 (2) KLT 932 ] it held that a sub-tenant cannot be excluded from the purview of the definition of the word 'tenant’ in the Act. The argument that there was no written authorization by the first respondent to enable the second respondent to file the application was also rejected citing the Division Bench decision of this Court inBaburaj v. Yacoob [2001 (2) KHC 360], which held that Rule 7(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979, does not prevent the signing of an application by the authorized agent of the applicant and the authorized agent has not been defined in the Rules. Thus finding that the second respondent would come within the definition of recognized/authorized agent and holding that Ext.A1 medical certificate also showed proof of illness, the application was allowed. The trial court had also recorded the fact that the delivery was effected on 27.2.2020 during the pendency of the application to set aside the exparte order. The landlord preferred an appeal as RCA 5 of 2021, which the appellate authority found was maintainable as the order under appeal did affect the rights of the parties. The appellate order, however, affirmed the trial court's order that rejected the contentions that the second respondent did not have the authority to file an application or that he was not the authorized agent. The appellate authority also found sufficient cause shown by the second respondent, who filed the application on behalf of the first respondent and rejected the appeal with costs.

3. The said order is challenged before us in this revision.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions taken before the courts below and submitted that the application preferred by the second respondent to set aside the exparte decree was not maintainable. It is also argued that the landlord had already taken delivery of the petition schedule building following the exparte order of eviction.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the delivery was effected when the application for setting aside the exparte decree was pending, and the Rent Control Court itself noticed the same.

7. After hearing the learned counsel on either side, we have no doubt