The court established that adequate reasons for delay in court appearance must be considered, and failures by lower courts to recognize this constitute an error requiring corrective action.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SOUMEN SEN &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948 RCREV. NO. 56 OF 2026 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.02.2026 IN RCA NO.48 OF 2025 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - IV / ADDL.MACT/RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2025 IN IA 5/2023 IN RCP NO.5 OF 2021 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALASSERY REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

SHAMEER.U AGED 38 YEARS S/O. ALI, FLAT.NO. ID, HOUSE NO. XIV, SNEHA THEERAM APARTMENTS, DHARMADAM.P.O, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR, PIN - 670106 BY ADV SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

THALASSERY WELWARE TRUST REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN AHAMMED RIAZ, S/O. LATE.

N.P.ABU, AGED 70 YEARS, REGD. OFFICE NO.

XXXXV/4312, MARIYAMMA ROAD, TEMPLEGATE.P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670672 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2026 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This revision petition is filed by the tenant, aggrieved by the dismissal of the applications preferred seeking to set aside the ex parte order and to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is noted that vide order dated 07.11.2022, the Rent Control Court allowed the petition filed by the landlord seeking eviction under Sections 11 (3) and 11(7) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act . The prayer for eviction under Section 11 (2)(a) of the Act was however rejected vide the said order.

2. Apparently, after the rendering of the said order, the tenant in the said proceedings i.e., the revision petitioner herein filed I.A. Nos. 5 of 2023 and 6 of 2023 in the selfsame Rent Control Petition, inter alia, pointing out that appearance could not be entered earlier on account of medical emergencies. It is noted that so as to substantiate the reasons stated for non-appearance, medical certificates had also been produced before the Court.

3. We note that the Rent Control Court vide the impugned order dated 15.02.2025 dismissed the delay condonation petition inter alia pointing out that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. We further note that consequent to the said dismissal of the delay condonation petition, the petition seeking to set aside the ex parte order i.e. I.A.No.6 of 2023 also stood dismissed.

4. The tenant, aggrieved by the said orders, had moved the Rent Control Appellate Authority vide R.C.A.No.48 of 2025, which was of no avail. We note that the Rent Control Appellate Authority had concluded that cause as pointed out does not meet the mandates for condoning delay and hence, the orders of the Rent Control Court dismissing the delay condonation petition and the ex parte order were sustained.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, the respondent is not represented. Although the respondent had the opportunity to appear and contest the proceedings, the respondent remained absent. In such circumstances, it is presumed that they are not willing to contest the proceeding. Accordingly, we have decided to hear the learned counsel for the petitioner and dispose of this petition in the absence of the respondent, on the basis of the pleadings available on record. We put it on record that service of the revision petition has been effected on the respondent.

6. We have perused the orders impugned herein.

We note that the petitioner had substantiated the reasons for non-appearance in the Rent Control Petition on valid grounds placing reliance on medical documents and has made out sufficient cause for condoning the delay. In