Ajithkumar, J.

This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the 1st respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.131 of 2017 before the Rent Control Court (Additional Munsiff-II), Kozhikode. The said R.C.P. was filed by the 1st respondent herein-landlord seeking eviction under Section 11(4)(i) and (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petitioner-tenant remained exparte and the Rent Control Court as per order dated 14.08.2019 directed the petitioner to put the 1st respondent-landlord in vacant possession of the petition schedule shop room within 60 days from the date of that order. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.131 of 2017 seeking to condone the delay of 138 days and also I.A.No.2 of 2020 seeking to set aside the said exparte order. Those applications were dismissed by the Rent Control Court as per separate orders on 21.05.2020. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the orders in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2020 as R.C.A.Nos.66 and 67 of 2021, respectively under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge- I), Kozhikode. I.A.No.1 of 2021 was filed in R.C.A.No.66 of 2021 seeking to stay the proceedings pursuant to order of eviction in R.C.P.No.131 of 2017. Pending the said application and the appeals, the respondent has been pursuing the execution proceedings and hence the petitioner filed this Original Petition seeking the relief of directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of I.A.No.1 of 2021 in R.C.A.No.66 of 2021 within a time fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel would submit that the order of the Rent Control Court in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.131 of 2017, which was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is wrong inasmuch as the court relied on Ratheesh v. A.M.Chacko and another [2018 (5) KHC 35]. Therefore there is every chance for the petitioner to succeed in R.C.A.Nos.66 and 67 of 2021. In the meantime, if delivery of the petition schedule building is effected, it will be in total prejudice to the petitioner.

4. Ext.P2 is the order in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.131 of 2017. It is seen that the said application was dismissed on the premise that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not have application to the rent control proceedings and for which, the decision of this Court in Ratheesh (supra) was relied on by the Rent Control Court. The said decision was overruled by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Hamsa K.K. and others v. Anthikottu Shehalatha and others [2020 (6) KHC 609].

5. Taking that into account the above facts and circumstances, it may appear that the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner has merits. In these circumstances, we are of the view that I.A.No.1 of 2021 in R.C.A.No.66 of 2021 requires to be disposed of without much delay. Hence, we dispose of this Original petition by directing the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Additional District Judge-I), Kozhikode to dispose of I.A.No.1 of 2021 in R.C.A.No.66 of 2021 within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

dkr

APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 108/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14-08-

2019 IN RCP NO. 131 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT/ADDITIONAL MUNSIF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE .

Exhibit P-2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-05-

2020 IN IA NO.1 OF 2020 IN RCP NO.131 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT/ADDITIONAL MUNSIF COURT-

II, KOZHIKODE.

Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-05-

2020 IN IA NO.2 OF 2020 IN RCP NO.131 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT/ADDITIONAL MUNSIF COURT-

II, KOZHIKODE .

Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN RSA NO.66 OF 2021 RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE Exhibit P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 1 O