IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RCRev No. 415 of 2006()
1. KAUSALYA, AGED 49,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VILASINI,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.KAUSALYA(PARTY IN PERSON)
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :18/01/2007
O R D E R
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------
R.C.R.NO.415 OF 2006
---------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2007.
O R D E R
A
BDUL GAFOOR, J.
The revision petitioner/tenant attempted an
appeal against an order of eviction passed by the Rent
Controller. But that appeal was filed with a delay of over
400 days. I.A.No.2965/04 was filed before the appellate
court seeking condonation of that delay. That was
dismissed. Therefore, this revision petition at the
instance of the tenant.
2. The revision petition was filed by the party in
person. Taking into account the complexity of the
contentions raised disputing the title of the landlady and
the tenancy arrangement, we requested Advocate
R.C.R.NO.415 OF 2006
:: 2 ::
Sri.K.Ramachandran to appear on behalf of the revision
petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the
revision petitioner so appointed, that Ext.A1 photo copy
of the assignment deed is the title deed produced by
the landlady before the Rent Controller. That was on
17.8.1998. The tenancy arrangement alleged as per
Ext.P3 is also of the same date. Thus, it is stated that
the contention of the tenant that there was no intention
to act upon Ext.A1 sale deed becomes probable, the
counsel submits, especially when she had continued in
possession and enjoyment of the property, by reason of
the reciprocative rent deed, Ext.A3.
4. It is also submitted that the Rent
Controller also addressed itself a wrong question as to
R.C.R.NO.415 OF 2006
:: 3 ::
whether the landlady had proved her title rather than
considering the dispute regarding the title of the
landlady raised by the revision petitioner/tenant as bona
fide. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the
merit of the matter requires consideration at the hands
of the Rent Control appellate authority. So, taking into
account the circumstances in which the revision
petitioner is placed, we are of the view that the delay in
filing the Rent Control Appeal shall have to be
condoned.
5. Sri.N.P.Samuel, counsel for the respondent
submits that execution proceedings have been initiated
and delivery of the building has been effected.
6. At the same time, when the revision petition
came up for admission, the revision petitioner herself
R.C.R.NO.415 OF 2006
:: 4 ::
appeared before the Bench and submitted that she was
continuing there. So, an interim order was passed to
maintain the position available then.
7. Taking into account the aforesaid aspects,
we are of the view that the order passed in
I.A.No.2965/04 has to be set aside and the delay in
filing R.C.A.No.116/04 on the file of the Rent Control
Appellate Authority, Thrissur, has to be condoned.
8. Accordingly, this Rent Control Revision is
allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The Rent
Control Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of
R.C.A.No.116/04 on merit. The interim order passed on
5.12.2006 in this petition shall continue until such
disposal.
R.C.R.NO.415 OF 2006
:: 5 ::
9. Taking into account the financial difficulty of
the revision petitioner, we are of the view that the
District Legal Services Authority, Thrissur shall make
necessary arrangement for the effective legal assistance
to the revision petitioner while the appeal is taken up.
10. The gist of the disposal of this revision
shall be intimated to the revision petitioner forthwith.
Sd/-
(K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K.PADMANABHAN NAIR)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge
K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR &
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JJ.
————————————————–
R.C.R.NO.415 OF 2006
O R D E R
18th January, 2007.
————————————————