IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 387 of 2010()
1. ROSILY, W/O.NEDUMPILLY CHAKKU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ITTIMATHEW, S/O.CHEERANVEETTIL CHERU,
... Respondent
2. C.U.DAVY, PROPRIETOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :09/12/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------
RCR.No. 387 OF 2010
------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010
O R D E R
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.
The landlady challenges in this revision under Section 20
of Act 2 of 1965 the judgment of the rent control appellate
authority, Thrissur, allowing the appeal as well as I.A.
No.2382/2010 which had been filed by the first respondent for
setting aside the ex parte order of eviction which was passed by
the rent control court against him and the 2nd respondent. It is
not the first time that this case reaches this court. We ourselves
had occasion to consider RCR No.325/2010 filed by the first
respondent before this court. We by our order in RCR
No.325/2010 imposed various conditions and directed the
learned appellate authority to consider the issue on merits
upon compliance of the conditions. All the conditions imposed
by us were complied with by the first respondent and it is
thereafter that the learned appellate authority has passed the
impugned judgment allowing I.A. No.2382/2010.
2. Various grounds have been raised in this memorandum
RCR.No.387/2010 2
of revision assailing the judgment of the appellate authority. We
have heard the submissions of Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned
senior counsel for the petitioner landlady and also those of
Sri.K.P.Padmakumar who took notice on behalf of the first
respondent as directed by us.
3. Mr.Chitambaresh submitted that the learned appellate
authority has passed the impugned judgment mechanically as
though this court by its order in RCR No.325/2010 had directed
that authority to allow the RCA. This court only directed the
learned appellate authority to decide the RCA on merits in
accordance with law. The appellate authority was bound to
consider whether the explanation offered by the first respondent
for his absence on the fateful day when the ex parte order was
passed against him was acceptable. There has been no such
consideration and the appellate authority’s judgment is per se
illegal, irregular and improper. The learned senior counsel also
pointed out that the learned appellate authority has granted relief
to the first respondent without imposing any conditions in view of
the conditions imposed by this court in RCR No. 325/2010. This
court at best had only indicated that the conditions imposed by
RCR.No.387/2010 3
this court also should be taken into account in case the
appellate authority becomes inclined to impose conditions. The
learned counsel highlighted that under the impugned judgment,
the learned appellate authority had granted relief even to the
2nd respondent against whom the ex parte order has already
attained finality.
4. The submissions of the learned senior counsel were
opposed by Sri.K.N.Padmakumar, learned counsel for the
respondents. According to him, there is no justification for
interfering with the impugned judgment within the contours of
Section 20 of Act of 1965.
5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find
some merits in the submissions of Mr.Chitambaresh, learned
senior counsel that the learned appellate authority has not under
the impugned judgment considered the sufficiency of the
explanation offered by the first respondent for his absence on
the fateful day when the ex parte order was passed against
him. We find more merit in the submissions of the learned
senior counsel that the appellate authority erred in granting
relief to the second respondent who had already suffered the
RCR.No.387/2010 4
ex parte order of eviction. However, we are not inclined to
interfere with the impugned judgment completely in view of
those reasons. After all, the learned appellate authority has only
directed consideration of the rent control petition in which
eviction is sought on various grounds by the rent control court
on merits. According to us, what is required is only a
clarification to the effect that the ex parte order has been set
aside only as against the first respondent and that the 2nd
respondent is not entitled to pursue the contentions which he
had filed in the rent control petition.
Subject to the above clarifications, the impugned judgment
is confirmed. We are informed that the rent control court has
already started the trial. We direct the rent control court to
make every endeavour to ensure that trial is completed and
the orders are passed in the rent control petition before the
court closes for Christmas Holidays.
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
dpk