Allowed

Jacob T.T. v. the District Collector

Kerala HC6 Dec 2013OP (RC)/2682/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order passed by the Appellate Authority in a tenant's appeal. The court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the District Collector acting under the Rent Control Act as the Collector is not a court and the Act does not confer power to condone delay.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P6 order set aside; implementation of Ext.P3 kept in abeyance for one month.

Jacob T.T. Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

OP (RC).No. 2682 of 2013 (O)

¶6

----------------------------(APPEAL NO.C6.40661/12 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY(DISTRICT COLLECTOR), KASARAGOD)

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/TENANT:

¶8

JACOB T.T., AGED 66 YEARS, DIRECTOR: GARDEN GRAPHICS & JANET ACADEMY, NEAR GOVT.COLLEGE, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN- 671 123.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶10

SMT.P.K.PRIYA SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN SRI.K.M.HASHIR SRI.K.M.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLATE AUTHORITY & APPELLANT(LANDLORDS):

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD, VIDYA NAGAR P.O., KASARAGOD-671 123

¶13

2. K.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O.M.K.MAMMEY, OPPOSITE GOVT.COLLEGE, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN -671 123.

¶14

3. SHAHIDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O.K.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, OPPOSITE GOVT. COLLEGE, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD, PIN -671 123.

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.A.RANJITH

¶16

R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED

¶17

THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

OP (RC).No. 2682 of 2013 (O)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28.7.2011.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT DATED 15.3.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ACCOMMODATION CONTROLLER DATED 5.5.2012.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P4: THE TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION TO CONDONE DELAY DATED 6.8.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS WITHOUT ANNEXURES SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 5.6.2012.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN C6.40661/2012 DATED NIL.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶33

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶34

O.P.(RC).No. 2682 of 2013

¶35

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶36

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶39

This original petition is filed challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the first respondent.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri T.K. Vipindas and

¶41

learned counsel Shri P.K. Mohammed appearing for the contesting respondents.

¶42

The petitioner is a tenant in respect of certain rooms owned by respondents 2 and 3. The matter in question is one where the petitioner has taken a contention that the appellate authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the appeal by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Initially the tenant approached the Accommodation Controller, who passed Ext.P3 order. Ext.P4 is the copy of the appeal filed under Section 13(6) of the Rent Control Act by respondents 2 and 3 and Ext.P4(6) is the application filed to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this

¶44

OP(RC) No.2682/2013

¶45

-2-

¶46

Court in Rajam v. Narayanan Nair (1989 KHC 171 = 1989 (1) KLT 699) holding the view that the District Collector is only an appellate forum and not an appellate authority. Therein, the issue considered was whether a Civil Revision Petition is maintainable, against the said order of the District Collector.

¶47

As far as the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, it is well settled that it may apply only in respect of courts and it cannot be said that the District Collector, while exercising power under Section 13(6) of the Act, is functioning as a court. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is well founded. Herein, without passing any order on the application to condone the delay, final order has been passed in the appeal, by setting aside the order and remanding the matter. No power is conferred under Section 13(6) or under any other provisions to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

¶48

Therefore, we set aside Ext.P6 order. It is clarified that this will not stand in the way of respondents 2 and 3 challenging Ext.P3 order through appropriate proceedings and for enabling them to challenge the same, the implementation of Ext.P3 will be kept in abeyance for a period of one

OP(RC) No.2682/2013

-3-

month.

The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶53

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶54

(B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶55

kav/

Jacob T.T. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob T.T. v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vareed Vs Elia

Angamaly Co-Operative Consumer'S Stores Ltd. NO.240 Vs John, S/O.Joseph

Sri.P.K.Narayanan Namboodiri Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Appu @ Viswambharan Vs Abhishek

Sri.K.R.Sreekumar, Thrissur Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Suo-Motu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board and Another