Thirunilath Gangadharan And Ors vs Safiya And Ors

A. Hariprasad, J

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

Petitioner is the respondent/tenant in R.C.P. No. 41 of 2016 before the Rent Control Court, Tirur. He was sought to be evicted by the

respondents/landlords under Sections 11(3) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, “B.R.C. Actâ€).

Petitioner remained absent at the time of trial and he was set exparte. Ext.P1 is the order of eviction passed against the petitioner exparte. Petitioner

filed Ext.P3 application to set aside the exparte order along with Ext.P2 application to condone the delay in filing the application. Rent Control Court

dismissed the delay condonation petition and consequently the petition to set aside the exparte order finding that the ratio in Ratheesh v. A.M.Chacko

and another (2018 (5) KHC 35) clearly shows that the Rent Control Court has no authority to invoke power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The decision in Ratheesh's case was doubted and referred to a Full Bench. A Full Bench of this Court in Hamsa K.K. and others v. Athikottu

Snehaletha and others (2020 (6) KHC 609) by judgment dated 03.12.2020 found that the decision in Ratheesh's case is legally incorrect. In short, the

Rent Control Court in an appropriate case has power to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the light of the above Full Bench decision the order

passed by the court below is not sustainable.

In the result, Exts.P6 and P7 orders passed by the Rent Control Court are set aside. We direct the Rent Control Court, Tirur to dispose of Exts.P2 and

P3 applications on merit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be an order of stay of execution

of Ext.P1 order until disposal of the above applications.