AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 283 wordsA. Hariprasad, J
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.
Challenge in this original petition is against Ext.P4, Ext.P5 and Ext.P7 orders passed by the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad in R.C.P No.80 of
2015. The original petitioner is the tenant sought to be evicted by the respondents under Section 11 (2) and 11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1965. As per Ext.P3 order, the Rent Control Court passed an order of eviction ex parte. That was sought to be set aside by filing
I.A No.5491 of 2019. That application was filed out of time. Hence, a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning delay was also filed.
As per Ext.P4 order, the Rent Control Court relying on Ratheesh v. Chacko (2018(4) KLJ 841) dismissed the delay condonation petition and
consequently the petition to set aside the ex parte order too.
Learned counsel on both sides agreed that the ratio in Ratheesh 's case (supra) was overruled by a decision of Full Bench decision reported in
Hamsa.K.K v. Athikottu Snehaletha (F.B) (I.L.R 2020 (4) Kerala 959). Considering the facts and circumstances, we are inclined to set aside Ext.P4
and Ext.P5 orders and direct the Rent Control Court to consider the application on merit within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
It is also directed that the tenant/petitioner shall clear off the entire admitted arrears within a period of two months from today.
The Rent Control Court, if allows the application, shall dispose of the case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.