M.K Diljith vs Asmabi Thazhepurayil Puthiya Veettil

Soumen Sen, C.J.

Heard Mr. Mohammed Nihad, learned counsel representing Mr. Abdul Raoof Pallipath, and Mr. K. M. Jamaludheen, learned counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner has complied with the previous direction and had deposited the arrears of rent for the period from 1^st July 2023 to 21^st September 2023. The petitioner has also preferred an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. There is a delay of 19 days in preferring the said appeal.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in the meantime, a substantial amount has become due and payable towards occupational charges.

As a condition precedent for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal and for staying further proceedings in the execution proceedings, we direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- within a period of two weeks from today. In default, the protection extended to the petitioner shall stand withdrawn forthwith without any further reference to this Court. The landlord shall accept the said amount of Rs.40,000/- without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the appeal.

Subject to compliance with the aforesaid condition, the application for condonation of delay shall be deemed to have been allowed, and the Rent Control Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal on merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of compliance with this order, without granting any adjournment to either of the parties unless it is unavoidable. It is needless to mention that, upon compliance with the aforesaid direction, the landlord shall withdraw the execution application.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.