IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 43 of 2009()
1. SMT.E.K.RAJAMMA, AGED 75,
... Petitioner
2. SHEEBA DILEEP, AGED 47, W/O.K.K.DILEEP,
3. M/S.GOLDEN AGENCIES,
Vs
1. ROSALINE JUSTIN, AGED 54 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. LEONA RITA BABU, AGED 52 YEARS,
3. VALSA REINHART, AGED 46
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :SRI.C.T.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :23/07/2009
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
------------------------
R.C.R.No.43 OF 2009
------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2009
ORDER
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision under Section 20 of Act of
1965 is the judgment of the rent control appellate authority
rejecting the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners tenants
on the reason that application which had been filed for condoning
the delay caused in the matter of filing the RCA was dismissed.
In this revision challenge is made not only on the rejection of the
appeal but also on the order dismissing the application for
condonation of delay.
2. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Sunil Nair
Palakkat, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and also
those of Sri.Roshin Ipe Joseph, learned counsel for the
respondent landlords.
3. Having regard to the submissions and having gone
through the judgment of the rent control appellate authority, we
are of the view that since the appellate authority has not
RCR.No.43/2009 2
considered the merits of the appeal and rejected the appeal only
on the ground of delay, that authority can be directed to consider
the RCA on its merits, but only on conditions. Accordingly, we
set aside the judgment under appeal as well as order of the rent
control appellate authority dated 24/1/2009 dismissing I.A.
No.7756/2008 subject to the following conditions;
i). The revision petitioners shall pay
by 18th August 2009 all the rent which has
fallen due in respect of the petition
schedule building till that date less any
amount paid during the pendency of this
RCR. Payment shall be made by cash
against the receipt to be issued by the
respondents or respondents’ counsel in this
court. We record that today in this court
payment of Rs.15,000/- is made by the
revision petitioners to the respondents’
counsel.
ii). The revision petitioners shall also
pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the Kerala
RCR.No.43/2009 3
Mediation Centre through its Nodal Officer
within two weeks from today.
Upon the revision petitioners making payments as ordered,
the judgment of the rent control appellate authority as well as
the order dismissing the I.A.No.7756/2008 will stand set aside
and the RCA will stand restored to the files of the rent control
appellate Authority and I.A. No.7756/2008 will stand allowed. If
both payments are not made, this RCR will stand dismissed.
Once the payments are made and this judgment becomes
operative, the rent Control appellate authority will post the RCA
for final hearing and disposal on the earliest available date and
will dispose of the RCA at the earliest and at any rate within one
month of 18/8/2009.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
dpk