IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev..No. 124 of 2008()
1. ALLIPARAMBATH MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HIGH POWER GROUP HOLDING AND ENTERPRISES
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN
For Respondent :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :18/11/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C KURIAKOSE & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.C.R. NO. 124 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2010.
O R D E R
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.
Under challenge in this revision filed by the landlord under Section
20 of Act 2 of 65 is the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority,
Kozhikode, confirming an order passed by the Rent Control Court, setting
aside the exparte order of eviction, which was passed against the
respondent/tenant. The respondent tenant is a Company. The respondent
was set exparte and eviction order was passed on the ground of arrears of
rent and cessation of occupation on the reason that in spite of service of
notice by publication in local news paper, the respondent did not enter
appearance. The exparte order was sought to be set aside by the
respondent/tenant mainly on the reason that the court ordered service by
publication even before direct service had been attempted. The Rent
Control Court became impressed on this ground and set aside the exparte
order imposing a condition that Rs. 250/- shall be paid to the revision
petitioner. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order .
2. In this revision under Section 20 of the Act, various grounds have
been raised and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision
RCR 124/2008 2
petitioner would address arguments on the basis of all those grounds. It
was submitted by the learned counsel that the application to set aside the
exparte order filed by the respondent was time barred and there was no
petition for condonation of delay. It was further submitted that rent was
heavily in arrears and the authorities below should have insisted for
payment of rent in arrears as a condition for setting aside the exparte order
of eviction. According to the learned counsel, the judgment of the
Appellate Authority is vitiated by illegalities, irregularities and
improprieties as envisaged by Section 20 of Act 2/65.
3. We have gone through the order of the Rent Control Court and
judgment of the Appellate Authority. One reason on the basis of which
these authorities became inclined to grant relief to the tenant is that
substituted service of notice was ordered even before direct service was
attempted. The above reason, in our view, was a fairly good reason. But we
find some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner that the court below ought to have imposed stringent terms. We
are, therefore, inclined to modify the orders of the authorities below
suitably.
4. Hence we dispose of this Rent Control revision Petition directing
that the order of the Rent Control Court and the judgment of the Appellate
RCR 124/2008 3
Authority will become operative and the respondent/tenant will get the
benefit of the order setting aside the exparte order only if the respondent
complies with the following conditions:
i. He pays a total amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)
inclusive of the cost already ordered to be paid, to the revision
petitioner/landlord directly or through his counsel in this Court within one
month from today.
ii. The respondent pays to the landlord or deposits before the Rent
Control Court the arrears of rent at the contract rate alleged by the landlord
due from the date of institution of the Rent Control petition till date within a
period of one month from today. If payments/deposits as ordered above are
not made, the impugned order of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate
Authority will stand set aside and the I.A. filed by the tenant will stand
dismissed.
PIUS C KURIAKOSE,
(JUDGE)
P.S. GOPINATHAN,
(JUDGE)
knc/-