AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.T. Sankaran, J.—The tenants are the revision petitioners. R.C.P.No.54 of 2001 was filed by the respondent/landlord before the Rent Control Court, Taliparamba under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The Rent Control Court allowed the Rent Control Petition on both the grounds. The legal heirs of the tenant filed R.C.A.No.174 of 2003 challenging the order of the Rent Control Court. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of eviction under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act. The bona fide need put forward by the landlord was also found in favour of the landlord. However, the Rent Control Petition was remanded to the Rent Control Court for arriving at a fresh finding on the availability or otherwise of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act in the present case.
After remand, the Rent Control Court allowed the petition under Section 11(3) of the Act. The finding of the Rent Control Court under the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act was against the tenants. Thereupon the tenants filed R.C.A.No.200 of 2013 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery, challenging the order of the Rent Control Court. There was a delay of 144 days in filing R.C.A.No.200 of 2013. The tenants filed I.A.No.2033 of 2013 to condone the delay of 144 days in filing the Rent Control Appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed I.A.No.2033 of 2013 by the order dated 5.6.2014, which is under challenge in R.C.R.No.172 of 2014. Consequent to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the Rent Control Appeal was dismissed, which is under challenge in R.C.R.No.171 of 2014.
The averment made in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.2033 of 2013 to condone the delay in filing the Rent Control Appeal was as follows:
In filing the above appeal there is a delay of 144 days which is caused due to some misunderstanding to take a decision to choose the appellate court on wrong advise.
The Appellate Authority found that the reason stated in the affidavit is not sufficient to condone the delay.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants and the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord. It is true that the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay are vague. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were given an advise to file a revision before the High Court against the order of the Rent Control Court after remand. Accordingly, they met the counsel at Ernakulam and only then they were given the correct advise to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. It is true that this reason is not specifically and clearly stated in the affidavit accompanying the application for condonation of delay. However, we are of the view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay is liable to be condoned so that a decision on the merits can be rendered by the Appellate Authority. When a party says that he was given a wrong legal advise in choosing the forum for redressal of his grievance, it would not be proper to refuse to decide his case on the merits.
For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the Rent Control Revisions and set aside the order dated 5.6.2014 in I.A.No.2033 of 2013 in R.C.A.No.200 of 2013 as well as the judgment in R.C.A.No.200 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery. I.A.No.2033 of 2013 will stand allowed on condition that the petitioners/tenants shall pay a sum of 3,000/- as costs to the respondent/landlord within a period of one month from today. If the petitioners/tenants pay the costs as aforesaid, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of R.C.A.No.200 of 2013 on the merits. The Rent Control Petition was filed in 2001 and even now it has not crossed the appellate stage. The Appellate Authority shall make every endeavour to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date fixed for appearance of parties.
The parties shall appear before the Rent Control Appellate. Authority on 18.8.2014.