Tenant set ex parte in a rent control eviction petition sought direction that the Rent Control Court first decide fresh applications to set aside the ex parte eviction order, filed after an earlier revision was dismissed. The High Court disposed of the petition directing hearing of those applications and deferring execution proceedings meanwhile.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1945
OP (RC) NO. 18OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 671/2020 IN RCP NO.91 OF 2015 OF
DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1V.K.JAYAPRAKASH
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O VALIYIL KARAPPAKUTTY, MULLASSERY AMSOM, THIRUNELLUR
DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, REPRESENTED BY MUKTHYAR (POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ) P.L ANIL KUMAR, S/O PANDARATHIL
LAKSHAMANAN, POOVATHUR DESOM, ELAVALLY VILLAGE,
CHAVAKKAD TALUK TRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680509
2 P.L ANIL KUMAR AGED 61 YEARS S/O PANDARATHIL LAKSHAMANAN, POOVVATHUR DESOM, ELAVALLYVILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALLUK THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680509BY ADVS.
RAJIT
V.V.JOY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 ADV.K.B.MOHANDAS S/O KULIYATT VALAPPIL BALAKRISHNAN, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, POOTHOLE DESOM, POOTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 6800042 ARAVIND @ ARAVINDAKSHAN EMPIRE GIFT AND BAGS, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 6800012
O.P.(RC) No.18 of 2024
BY ADVS.
SABU GEORGE .
P.B.KRISHNAN(K/1193/1994)
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN(K/1145/2009)
B.ANUSREE(K/000951/2016)
MANU VYASAN PETER(K/000652/2013)
THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
O.P.(RC) No.18 of 2024
J U D G M E N T
G. Girish, J.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for a direction to the Rent Control Court, Thrissur to consider and pass final orders in Exts.P8 to P10 applications before proceeding with E.P.No.671 of 2020 arising from R.C.P.No.91 of 2015 of the said court. The 1st petitioner herein is the tenant and the 1st respondent is the landlord who filed R.C.P.No.91 of 2015 under Section 5(1), Section 11(2)(b), Section 11(3) and Section 11(4)(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). The 2nd petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the persons
to whom the petition schedule building has been allegedly subleased.
for setting aside the ex parte order. The above petition was dismissed by the Rent Control Court vide Ext.P5 order dated 20.12.2019 for the reason that the original power of attorney executed in favour of the 2nd petitioner was not produced. Thereafter, Ext.P3 ex parte order of eviction was passed by the Rent
4
O.P.(RC) No.18 of 2024
Control Court on 21.12.2019. The 1st petitioner challenged the above
order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur by filing R.C.A.No.51 of 2020. The Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal on 29.09.2023 vide Ext.P6 judgment. Challenging the above dismissal of the appeal, the 1st petitioner filed R.C.R.No.279 of 2023 before this Court. The above R.C.R was dismissed by another Division Bench of this Court vide Ext.P7 order, wherein it has been observed in paragraph No.4 as follows:
“4. As noted, I.A.No.20123 of 2019 is an application preferred by the second petitioner on behalf of the first petitioner seeking orders to set aside the order setting the first petitioner ex parte in the proceedings. Inasmuch as the second petitioner has not produced the original of the power of attorney along with the interlocutory application, the dismissal of the said application can be considered only as a rejection of the application. Such an order cannot be challenged in appeal under Section 18 of the Act inasmuch as the petitioners do not have a case that an interlocutory application for the purpose referred to above could have been instituted without producing the original of the power of attorney. The only remedy available to the petitioners, in the circumstances, was to file a fresh application with the original of the power of attorney. The said course has not been adopted by the petitioners. Needless to say, the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the Rent Control Court is not maintainable. If the appeal preferred by the petitioners is not maintainable, the rent control revision is only to be dismissed. Even if it is found that the
5
O.P.(RC) No.18 of 2024
appeal preferred by the petitioners against the order rejecting the interlocutory application is maintainable, no relief can be granted to the petitioners since the first petitioner suffered an ex parte order after the filing of the interlocutory application and the said order has become final inasmuch as the petitioners have not challenged the same.”
6
O.P.(RC) No.18 of 2024
7
O.P.(RC) No.18 of 2024
Executing Court proceeds with E.P.No.671 of 2020 arising out of
R.C.P.No.91 of 2015 of the Rent Control Court, is liable to be allowed.
In the result, the Original Petition is disposed of as follows:
(sd/-)
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
8
O.P.(RC) No.18 of 2024
APPENDIX OF OP (RC) 18/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 |
THE TRUE COPY OF RCP 91/2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL COUR,THRISSUR DATED 15.07.2015 |
|---|---|
Exhibit P2 |
THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTEDBY THE 1ST PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONERDATED 30.01.2023 |
Exhibit P3 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RCP 91/2015 OF THE RENTCONTROL COURT, THRISSUR DATED 21.12.2019 |
Exhibit P4 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2NDPETITIONERASI.A.NO.20123OF2019INR.C.P.NO.91/2015 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT DATED17.12.2019 |
Exhibit P5 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RENT CONTROLCOURTTHRISSURINI.A.NO.20123OF2019INR.C.P.NO.91/2015 DATED 20.12.2019 |
Exhibit P6 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITYIN R.C.A.NO..51/2020 DATED 29.09.2023 OF THE IVADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THRISSUR |
Exhibit P7 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2023 INR.C.R.NO.279/2023 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT |
Exhibit P8 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED TO SET ASIDE THEEX-PARTE ORDER R.P.NO.1/2024 IN R.C.P.NO.91/2015DATED 08.01.2024 |
Exhibit P9 |
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED TO CONDONE THEDELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.2/2024 INR.C.P.NO.91/2015 TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED08.01.2024 |
9
O.P.(RC) No.18 of 2024
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO ACCEPT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY I.A.NO.1/2024 IN R.C.P.NO.91/2015Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION E.A.NO.169/2024 IN E.P 671/2020 IN RCP 91/2005 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR FILED TO STAY THE EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS DATED 07.12.20212 issues framed by the court
Whether execution of the ex parte eviction order should be deferred until the Rent Control Court decides petitions to set aside that order.
Should the Rent Control Court be directed to pass final orders on Exts.P8 to P10 before proceeding with E.P.No.671 of 2020?
5 provisions across 2 enactments
V.K.Jayaprakash
P.L Anil Kumar
Adv.K.B.Mohandas
Aravind @ Aravindakshan Empire Gift and Bags
Anil K.Narendran
G.Girish
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court