Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Muhamed Mustaque, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ
V.K. JAYAPRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
ADV. K.B. MOHANDAS – Respondent
RCREV. NO. 261 OF 2025 | RCA NO.72 OF 2024 | RCP NO.91 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.K.R.Arun Krishnan, Shri.Vishak K.V., Shri.Anu T.H., Smt.Anusree P.A., Smt.Deepak K.Radhakrishnan
For the Respondents: Sri.Sabu George, Sri.P.B.Subramanyan, Sri.Manu Vyasaan Peter
Eviction proceedings validly dismissed when the tenant's representative fails to adhere to procedural timelines and the original tenant remains absent.
Headnote:This case examines the proceedings concerning the eviction petition filed under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The original tenant was set ex-parte, prompting the sub-tenant to contest the eviction. After a lengthy delay of 2658 days, the application to set aside was dismissed. Key determinations included procedural adherence and the legitimacy of the landlord's claims regarding the tenant's absence. The court stated that the previous authorities recalled no reason for interference. The pivotal issues revolved around the power of attorney's role and the significant delay in filing the contestation. The rationale focused on procedural correctness, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the earlier orders were valid and appropriate under the law. The court permitted the tenant six months to vacate under strict conditions, reinforcing order execution in case of non-compliance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details surrounding the tenant's eviction application and delays. (Para 1) |
| 2. court observations regarding procedural correctness. (Para 2) |
| 3. final ruling allowing a timeframe for eviction. (Para 3) |
O R D E R
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The revision petitioner, V.K.Jayaprakash, was the original tenant in the proceedings but was set ex-parte. His power of attorney holder, Anilkumar, who is also the sub- tenant, contested the eviction petition. The landlord sought eviction under Sections 11 (2)(b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act , 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition. The sub-tenant carried the matter to this Court in RCR No.279 of 2023, but the revision filed by Anilkumar was dismissed. Thereafter, Anilkumar filed an application before the Rent Controller, as the power of attorney holder of Jayaprakash, seeking to set aside the ex- parte eviction order passed against the tenant. This was accompanied by an application to condone delay of 2658 days. The delay was condoned on cost and application to set aside the ex-parte order was dismissed by the Rent Controller, and this was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Jayaprakash, represented by his power of attorney holder, has now challenged those orders. It is relevant to note that the power of attorney holder had been contesting the matter only in his capacity as a sub-tenant. The landlord contends that the original tenant has permanently settled abroad and that the applications were filed merely to protract the proceedings.
2. Anyway, taking note of the fact that the delay involved is 2658 days and that the power of attorney holder had already contested the matter as a sub-tenant, though in a different capacity, we find no reason to interfere in this matter. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority rightly rejected the applications, and we affirm those findings of fact.
3. The revision petitioner seeks atleast six months time to vacate the building. However, this was opposed. Taking note of the facts and circumstances, we grant the tenant to vacate the building on or before 15.02.2026, subject to the following terms and conditions;
i) The tenant shall file an affidavit before the Rent Control Court or the Execution Court, as the case may be, within one week from today, expressing an unconditional undertaking that he will surrender the vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room to the landlord on or before 15.02.2026 and that, the tenant shall not induct third parties into possession of the petition-scheduled shop room.
ii) Needless to say, failing to comply with the condition stated above, the time limit granted by this order to surrender the vacant possession of the petition-scheduled shop room will stand cancelled automatically, and the landlord will be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction.
The Rent Control Revision is accordingly dismissed.
