SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 14501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Soumen Sen, CJ, Syam Kumar V.M., J
SIJO JOSE – Appellant
Versus
VALIPARAMBILABUBACKER – Respondent
OP (RC) NO. 24 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.FRANKLIN ARACKAL
For the Respondents: SHRI. AAMIR SOHRAB M.

The court allows the condonation of delay in eviction cases to ensure justice while stipulating that the petitioner must settle financial obligations to proceed with the appeal.

Headnote:This judgment, concerning OP (RC) NO. 24 OF 2026, relates to a rent control matter where the petitioner sought review based on a delay in appeal against eviction. The Court analyzed statutory complexities and financial obligations of the parties, concluding that the petitioner must pay a sum due to the respondent as a precondition for any relief related to eviction. The primary issue addressed was the condonation of delay in filing the appeal, which the Court granted emphasizing the necessity to provide an opportunity for justice while not delving into the merit of the eviction order. The final outcome was to permit the petitioner's appeal under specific conditions regarding financial settlement.

Table of Content
1. overview of the financial obligations related to the rent control dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. discussion on the condonation of delay for the appeal. (Para 3)
3. clarification regarding the limitations of the court's engagement with the merits of the case. (Para 4)
4. final ruling allowing conditional relief for the petitioner. (Para 6)

Soumen Sen , C.J .

In view of the uncontroverted fact that a sum of Rs.3.20,000/- (approximately) will be due and payable towards the difference of amount repayable after the fixation of fair rent in the year 2014, we direct the petitioner to pay the aforesaid sum to the respondent within a period of one week from date.

2.The grievance of the petitioner in the revision petition is that the order of eviction is under challenge, and in the event the delivery of possession is allowed by the execution court, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and prejudice.

3.Admittedly, there is a delay of 556 days in preferring the appeal against the order passed by the learned Munsiff. The application for condonation of delay is pending. The application was filed on 21.01.2026 with a prayer for condonation of delay. Since the petitioner has agreed to pay the aforesaid sum within a period of one week, we feel that an opportunity may be given to the petitioner to move the appeal. However, any order of stay of the operation of the impugned order shall be at the sole discretion of the Appellate Court.

4.We are only allowing the prayer for condonation of delay in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, so as to ensure complete justice and to give opportunity to the petitioner to avail of the remedy by way of an appeal. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. 5.The application for condonation of delay pending before the Appellate Court shall stand disposed of in terms of this order.

6.We make it clear that in the event the aforesaid sum is not deposited within a period of one week from date, it will be open for the execution court to proceed with the execution of the decree in accordance with law, until any fresh order is passed by the first appellate court.

The Petition is accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top