J U D G M E N T

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The respondent/tenant who is sought to be evicted from the tenanted premises, remained absent from the Rent Control Court and he was set ex parte. Ext.P2 is the order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court against the ex parte tenant. He filed Exts.P3 and P4 applications to set aside ex parte order and to condone delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. At that time, a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ratheesh V. vs. A.M.Chacko and anr. (2018(5) KHC 35), was pronounced. The tenant approached this Court with this original petition apprehending that he will be evicted by executing the order passed in the pending execution petition. Execution proceedings have been stayed by this Court in the original proceedings. Having regard to the decision by a Full Bench dated 03.12.2020 in Faisal v. Vikas Chacko (2020(6) KLT 722) answering the reference against Ratheesh's case, wherein it has been held that the ratio in Ratheesh's case is not correct and the Rent Control Court has power to condone delay by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we hereby direct the Rent C