R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** **R.C.REV.NO. 164 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2021 IN I.A.NO.3 OF 2020 IN R.C.A.NO.60 OF 2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT JUDGE), THRISSUR AND AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.612 OF 2019 IN R.C.P.NO.7 OF 2012 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF), IRINJALAKUDA REVISION PETITIONER:** ## **CURRENT BOOKS,** **CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAVI.D.C, S/O.DOMINIC CHACKO, KIZHAKKEMURI HOUSE, DEVALOKAM, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, G.VENUGOPAL, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.K.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, GOPI VILASAM, POOTHAKKUZHI POST, PAMBADI, KOTTAYAM-686521.** **BY ADVS.** **B.ASHOK SHENOY P.S.GIREESH C.G.PREETHA ARJUN R NAIK** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 MERY ANTHAPPAN, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-680733.** 2 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 - **2 PAULSON,** **AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-680733.** **3 BABU, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-680733.** - **4 VINCENT,** **AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-680733.** **BY ADVS. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL R.RAJITHA CHITHRA.S.BABU R.N.SANDEEP** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.165 OF 2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** **RCREV. NO. 165 OF 2021 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2021 IN R.C.A.NO.60 OF 2020 OF THE RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY (DISTRICT JUDGE), THRISSUR AND AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.612 OF 2019 IN R.C.P.NO.7 OF 2012 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT (PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF), IRINJALAKUDA** ## **REVISION PETITIONER:** ## **CURRENT BOOKS** **CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAVI D.C, S/O. DOMINIC CHACKO, KIZHAKKERMURI HOUSE, DEVALOKAM, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER , G.VENUGOPAL AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. K.G GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, GOPI VILASAM, POOTHAKKUZHI POST, PAMBADI, KOTTAYAM - 686 521.** **BY ADVS.** **B.ASHOK SHENOY C.G.PREETHA P.S.GIREESH ARJUN R NAIK** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 MERY ANTHAPPAN AGED 66 YEARS, W/O. MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 733.** 4 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 - **2 PAULSON,** **AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 733.** **3 BABU, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 733.** - **4 VINCENT,** **AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.MATHANCHIRA ANTHAPPAN, KARALAM VILLAGE, KIZHUTHANI DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 733.** **BY ADVS. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL R.RAJITHA CHITHRA.S.BABU R.N.SANDEEP** **THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, ALONG WITH R.C.Rev.NO.164 OF 2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 5 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 ## **O R D E R** ## Anil K.Narendran, J. The petitioner is the respondent-tenant in R.C.P.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court (Principal Munsiff), Irinjalakuda, a petition filed by the respondents hereinlandlords under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the KErala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In that R.C.P., the landlord filed I.A.No.612 of 2019, an application under Section 12 of the Act, requiring the tenant to deposit admitted arrears of rent as on that date and to continue to pay rent for the subsequent period. In that interlocutory application, the Rent Control Court passed an order dated 03.04.2019 under Section 12(1) and (2) of the Act. The said order was followed by order dated 08.11.2019 under Section 12(3) of the Act. Challenging that order, the tenant filed R.C.A.No.60 of 2020 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (District Judge), Thrissur along with an application, i.e., I.A.No.3 of 2020, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 89 days in filing the appeal. That application ended in 6 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 dismissal by the order dated 27.03.2021. Consequently, by the judgment dated 27.03.2021 that R.C.A. was also dismissed as time barred. The aforesaid order dated 27.03.2021 in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in R.C.A.No.60 of 2020 is under challenge in R.C.Rev.No.164 of 2021 and the judgment dated 27.03.2021 in R.C.A.No.60 of 2020 is under challenge in R.C.Rev.No.165 of 2021. 2. When these Revision Petitions were came up for consideration on 23.11.2021, this Court issued notice to the respondent. In I.A.No.1 of 2021 in R.C.Rev.No.164 of 2021 this Court granted an interim order staying all proceedings for execution of order dated 08.11.2019 in I.A.No.612 of 2019 in R.C.P.No.7 of 2012 of the Rent Control Court and also the proceedings in E.P.No.35 of 2020 in R.C.P.No.7 of 2012 of the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Irinjalakuda, for a period of one month. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord. 4. The issue that arises for consideration in these 7 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 revision petitions is as to whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting I.A.No.3 of 2020 in R.C.A.No.60 of 2020, which is one filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking an order to condone the delay of 89 days in filing the R.C.A. and consequently dismissing that appeal by a separate judgment. 5. As already noticed herein before, the extent of delay sought to be condoned by filing I.A.No.3 of 2020 in R.C.A.No.60 of 2020 is only 89 days. 6. The Limitation Act, 1963 was enacted by the Parliament to consolidate and amend the law for the limitation of suits and other proceedings and for purposes connected therewith. Section 5 of the Act deals with extension of prescribed period in certain cases. As per Section 5, any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. As per Explanation to Section 8 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 5, the fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this Section. 7. It is well settled that the Law of Limitation is founded on public policy to ensure that the parties to a litigation do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek legal remedy without delay. In an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the court has to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. Adopting a liberal approach in condoning the delay is one of the guiding principles, but such liberal approach cannot be equated with a licence to approach the court-at-will disregarding the time limit fixed by the relevant statute. The acts of negligence or inaction on the part of a litigant do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, in the matter of condonation of delay, sufficient cause is required to be shown, thereby explaining the sequence of events and the circumstances that led to the delay. 9 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 ## 8. In **Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji [(1987)** **2 SCC 107]** , in the context of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the Apex Court held that, the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the Legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice, that being the lifepurpose for the existence of the institution of courts. 9. In **Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [(2013) 12 SCC 649]** the Apex Court while summerising the principles applicable while dealing with an application for condonation of delay held that, the concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. The Apex Court held further that, there is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 10 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 ## 10. In **Rafeek and another v. K. Kamarudeen and** **another [2021 (4) KHC 34]** a Division Bench of this Court held that, though the expression 'sufficient cause' employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice, as held by the Apex Court in **Katiji [(1987) 2 SCC 107],** the concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play, as held by the Apex Court in **Esha Bhattacharjee [(2013) 12 SCC 649]** . Inordinate delay, which attracts doctrine of prejudice, warrants strict approach, whereas, a delay of short duration or few days, which may not attract doctrine of prejudice, calls for a liberal delineation. An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and no court shall deal with such an application in a routine manner. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the extent of delay is only 89 days, the Appellate Authority ought to have condoned the same taking a lenient 11 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 view. In case the Appellate Authority was not fully satisfied with the explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay, it could have imposed a reasonable amount as cost. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents-landlords would contend that before the Rent Control Court amble opportunity was given to the tenant to pay the admitted arrears of rent in terms of the order passed under Section 12(1) of the Act. Having failed to remit the said amount, the tenant is not entitled for any indulgence in the matter. 13. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, in the light of the provisions in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and also the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, this Court finds that an opportunity can be granted to the tenant to prosecute R.C.A.No.60 of 2020 on merits, considering the fact that the extent of delay sought to be condoned in I.A.No.3 of 2020 is only 89 days. 12 R.C.Rev.Nos.164 & 165 of 2021 In such circumstances, these revision petitions are allowed by setting aside the impugned order in I.A.No.3 of 2020 in R.C.A.No.60 of 2020 on payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the tenant to the landlords within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. On such payment, I.A.No.3 of 2020 in R.C.A.No.60 of 2020 will stand allowed and R.C.A.No.60 of 2020 will stand restored to file. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority shall finally dispose of that R.C.A. as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months. Till such orders are passed, interim order granted in R.C.Rev.No.164 of 2021 shall continue to be in force. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** ## **Sd/-** ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr