Back
2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35203
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.HARILAL, P.SOMARAJAN, JJ
ABOOBACKER – Appellant
Versus
NANDAKUMAR – Respondent
OP (RENT CONTROL) 100/2017
Timely disposal of rent control applications is crucial, especially for senior citizens, to ensure justice and prevent undue delays in legal proceedings.
Headnote:
Delay - Rent Control Applications - Sections Not Specified - The court highlighted the importance of timely disposal of rent control applications, directing the Rent Control Court to resolve pending cases within a month to prevent undue delay and safeguard the rights of senior citizens.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner expressed grievances regarding significant delays in processing applications in Rent Control Court, particularly concerning ex parte orders and execution petitions, causing apprehension about ongoing proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the substantial delays and opted to direct the Rent Control Court to expedite the disposal of the pending cases within a month, ensuring timely justice.
Issues: Whether the delays in the Rent Control Court in processing applications warrant intervention by the higher court to expedite procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for timely resolution in rent control matters to uphold justice, especially for vulnerable parties such as senior citizens.
Final Decision: The court directed the Rent Control Court to resolve the pending cases within one month.
JUDGMENT
Harilal, J.
The common grievance projected in these OP (RCs.) is that there is an inordinate delay in disposing the applications before the Rent Control Court. More particularly, it is stated in OP(RC) No.100/2017 that 1 ½ years have been taken for disposing Exts.P8 and P9 applications to set aside the ex parte order and to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order. The petitioner further submits that he is a senior citizen, aged 72 years, and he apprehends that the Rent Control Petitions O.P.(R.C.) Nos. 100 & 101 of 2017 will not be disposed of in a near future, unless a specific direction is given by this Court to dispose the Rent Control Petitions within a specified time.
2. In OP(RC) No.101/2017, his grievance is that Exts.P3 and P4 applications to condone the delay to set aside the ex parte order was allowed on payment of `4,000/-, as cost. The cost has not been fully paid so far, as directed by the Rent Control Court and now, there is no legal impediment in executing the ex parte order. But, the Rent Control Court has not taken effective steps to dispose the Execution Petition and the matter is being delayed without sufficient reasons.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Having regard to the inordinate delay in the proceedings before the Rent Control Court, the Rent Control Court, Kodungalloor, is directed to consider and dispose R.C.P. No.25/2013 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and report the same to this Court.
O.P.(R.C.) Nos. 100 & 101 of 2017 Similarly, the Execution Court is directed to dispose E.P.No.148/2016 in R.C.P. No.24/2013 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the tenant has not complied the condition to set asdie the ex parte order and report the same also to this Court.
These OP(RCs.) are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(K.HARILAL, JUDGE)
