Partly allowed

Moideenkunju @ Mullakoya v. Usmankutty

Kerala HC8 Aug 2018RCRev./252/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Kerala upheld the Rent Control Appellate Authority's order confirming a Rs. 5,000 cost imposed on the appellant for filing a revision to set aside an ex-parte order. The court found the lower courts' reasoning sufficient but granted the appellant one month to contest the rent petition on merits by depositing the cost.

What did the court decide?

Ex-parte order held in force if appellant fails to contest rent petition on merits by depositing Rs. 5,000 cost within one month. Rent Control Court ordered to dispose of petition on merits within fou

Moideenkunju @ Mullakoya Vs Usmankutty — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶7

RCRev..No. 252 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RCA 54/2014 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE), TIRUR DATED 06-04-2017

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN RCP 30/2012 OF THE RENT CONTROLLER, TIRUR DATED 28-02-2014

¶10

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶11

MOIDEENKUNJU @ MULLAKOYA,

¶12

AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAVA, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, PACHATTIRI AMSOM, PARAVANNA DESOM, NEAR VAKKAD MADRASSA, TIRUR TALUK, PARAVANNA POST, 676 105.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

¶14

SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.V.A.HARITHA

¶15

SRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV

¶16

SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL

¶17

SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶19

USMANKUTTY,

¶20

AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED ABDUL KADER, PATTATH HOUSE, PACHATTIRI AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK, PIN - 676 105.

¶21

THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

K.Harilal & Annie John, JJ.

¶23

====================================

¶24

R.C.R.252/2018

¶25

==================================== Dated this the 8^th day of August, 2018.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

K.Harilal, J.

¶28

The revision petitioner herein is the

¶29

respondent in RCP 30/2012 on the files of the Rent Control Court, Tirur. The aforesaid rent control petition was filed by the respondent herein for fixation of fair rent. According to the revision petitioner, he was laid up when

¶30

the case was called on for hearing. He was set ex-parte and the rent control petition was

¶31

allowed, as prayed for. The revision petitioner, therefore, filed an application to

¶32

set aside the ex-parte order. The said application was allowed, on payment of

¶33

R.C.R.252/2018

¶34

-:2:-

¶35

Rs.5,000/- as cost. Aggrieved by the imposition of cost of Rs.5,000/-, the revision petitioner filed RCA 54/2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tirur. After considering the reasonings, whereby the Rent Control Court imposed cost of Rs.5,000/-, the Appellate Authority confirmed the cost and dismissed the appeal. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid findings, whereby the Rent Control Court imposed cost of Rs.5,000/-, are challenged in this revision.

¶36

2.Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Though notice has been duly served to the respondent, there is no representation.

¶37

3.It is the case of the revision petitioner that he was laid up and he could not appear before the Rent Control Court when the case was called on for hearing. Going by the impugned order,

¶38

R.C.R.252/2018

¶39

-:3:-

¶40

it could be seen that when the case was called on for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reported before the Rent Control Court that he has no instructions from the petitioner and it resulted in passing of the ex-parte order against the revision petitioner. The court below considered the fact that the revision petitioner has no case that he was unable to contact his counsel to get an adjournment for trial of the case, on the ground of his illness. Even though he was laid up, he could have contacted his counsel to give necessary instructions. In the above view, the Rent Control Court found that the reasons stated in the petition was not a sufficient cause to take a liberal view and allowed the application on payment of Rs.5,000/-, as cost to the respondent. We are of the opinion that

¶41

R.C.R.252/2018

¶42

-:4:-

¶43

the imposition of cost for allowing a petition depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

¶44

4.Going by the impugned order, it could be seen that the cost was imposed on a finding that the revision petitioner contributed much for the pendency of the case for two years, before the Rent Control Court and thereby caused much inconvenience and hardship to the respondent and considering the said fact, the Rent Control Court imposed cost of Rs.5,000/- to set aside the ex-parte order. Thus, the imposition of cost is supported by sufficient reasoning. Therefore, we do not find any kind of illegality or impropriety in the imposition of cost. The Appellate Authority is justified in confirming the order passed by the Rent Control Court imposing cost of Rs.5,000/-, for allowing

¶45

R.C.R.252/2018

¶46

-:5:-

¶47

the petition to set aside the ex-parte order. The revision is devoid of any merits and we

¶48

confirm the order passed by the courts below.

¶49

5.But, having regard to the interest of justice and equity, the revision petitioner is given one more opportunity to contest the rent control petition on merits on deposit of the same cost within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in the Rent Control Court, failing which the ex-parte order will stand in force. On compliance, the ex-parte order will stand set aside and the Rent Control Court shall proceed with the rent control petition and dispose of on merits at the earliest, at any rate, within four months from today. The respondent is allowed to realise the said amount as cost from the Rent Control Court.

¶50

R.C.R.252/2018

¶51

-:6:-

¶52

6.The rent control revision is disposed of accordingly.

¶53

Sd/- Sd/- K.Harilal, Judge

¶54

Annie John, Judge

¶55

sl.

¶56

/true copy/

¶57

P.S. To Judge. To

Moideenkunju @ Mullakoya v. Usmankutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moideenkunju @ Mullakoya v. Usmankutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tomy Mathew Vs Siby C. Jose

Kuniyil Komalam Vs Kruppamkandy Premarajan

Chetti Parambath Yusaf Vs Keerampally Sumangala Devi

Shani Khader Vs Muhammed Hakkim

Pradeep Menon Vs Rajesh

Johny Vs Surabhi Movies