Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29401
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 15TH POUSHA, 1944
RCREV. NO. 209 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2022 IN RCA NO.13 OF
2016 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR / II
ADDITIONAL MACT, THRISSUR CONCURRING WITH THE COMMON
ORDER IN IA 5655/2015 IN RCP NO.138 OF 2013 DATED
25.06.2022 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
A.V.FRANCIS, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O ALAPPATT
PALATHINKAL VARU, AVENUE ROAD, THRISSUR-680005,
NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.177, HILL GARDEN,
KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR-680 014.
BY ADVS.
P.B.KRISHNAN
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
JIPSON ANTONY
MANU VYASAN PETER
SABU GEORGE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
FINE ARTS SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
P J SEBASTIAN, S/O JOSEPH, PALATTY HOUSE,
PULLAZHY VILLAGE, CHETTUPUZHA DESAM, THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680 012.
BY ADVS.
PLEASANT T SAMUEL (CAVEATOR)
PLEASANT.T.SAMUEL
THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RCREV. NO. 209 OF 2022
..2..
A delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte order will not be condoned unless there is sufficient reason.
Headnote:
EVICTION - BONA FIDE NEEDS - RENT ARREARS - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE EX-PARTE ORDER - NO SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONDONE DELAY - REVISION PETITION DISMISSED
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order of eviction and an application to condone the delay of 467 days. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, and the Appellate Authority upheld the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order. The court also noted that the tenant owed Rs.9,25,000/- in rent arrears.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte order should be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no bona fides in the application to condone the delay and that no interference was warranted in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J The tenant is before us. He was set ex-
parte in a petition for eviction. The eviction was sought under the ground of rent arrears and bona fide needs. The Rent Control Court, on being satisfied with the ground of eviction, allowed the petition for eviction. The tenant, thereafter, filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order along with an application to condone the delay of 467 days. The Rent Controller dismissed the application. The Rent Controller noted that the tenant had received notice and not chosen to appear. The tenant approached the Rent Controller only after receiving notice in the Execution Petition. It is also noted that the petition to set aside the ex-parte order was filed after lapse of more than three months after receipt of the notice in Execution Petition. Absolutely there was no reason stated to condone the delay. Accordingly, the Rent Controller dismissed the application.
2. In appeal also the Appellate Authority found that there was no sufficient reason to condone the delay. The Appellate Authority also further noted that the application to condone the delay was not maintainable before the Rent Control Court. We are not entering into the controversy relating to the power of the Rent Controller to condone the delay to set aside the ex-parte order. Be that it may, we find no reason in this matter to condone the delay. It has been pointed out the learned counsel for the landlord, Rs.9,25,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Twenty Five Lakh only) is due towards the rent arrears.
3. On last occasion, we orally asked to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner whether the revision petitioner is volunteering to pay the rent arrears to show some leniency to him in this matter. However, today the answer is negative. We are of the view that there is bona fides in the application filed by the tenant to condone the delay as well as the application to set aside the ex-parte order. No interference is warranted, invoking revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
