K.T.Sankaran, J.
The first respondent/landlord filed R.C.P.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Sulthan Bathery against the second respondent under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Subsequently, the present petitioner, who is none other than the son of the tenant (second respondent), was impleaded as additional second respondent.
2. When the Rent Control Petition came up for hearing both the respondents in the Rent Control Petition remained absent. They were set exparte. The second respondent (father of the petitioner) filed an application to set aside the exparte decree. That application was dismissed by the Rent Control Court. Against that order, the second respondent filed O.P.(R.C.)No.102 of 2014 before this Court. Really, an appeal was maintainable. Nevertheless, he invoked the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, when the landlord appeared in that case, he conceded that to avoid delay let the exparte order be set aside and the Rent Control Court be directed to dispose of the Rent Control Petition within a time frame. Accordingly, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of O.P. (R.C.)No.102 of 2014 by the judgment dated 3.9.2014, the concluding part of which reads as follows:
“In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the landlord, we dispose of the Original Petition, setting aside the order dated 28.6.2014 in I.A.No.18 of 2014 in R.C.P.No.17 of 2009 and the exparte order of eviction, on the following conditions:
a) The petitioner/tenant shall deposit before the Rent Control Court a sum of ₹1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as costs payable to the landlord within one month from today.
b) If the petitioner/tenant fails to deposit the costs, the order passed by the court below in I.A.No.18 of 2014 shall stand confirmed.
c) The tenant shall deposit the admitted arrears of rent before the Rent Control Court within one month from today and also pay the admitted monthly rent on or before 10th of the succeeding months.
d) If the tenant complies with the conditions mentioned above, the Rent Control Court shall dispose of the Rent Control Petition on the merits as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, before 15.12.2014. “
3. The father (first respondent in the Rent Control Petition/second respondent in the present Original Petition) and the present petitioner, who is the son of the first respondent, are residing together in the same house. The son also filed an application to set aside the exparte decree with an application to condone the delay of 39 days. The Rent Control Court dismissed that application as per the order dated 28.6.2014. Against the order dated 28.6.2014, the son (second respondent in the Rent Control Petition) filed R.C.A.Nos.25 of 2014 and 26 of 2014 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kalpetta. There was delay in filing the appeals and applications were filed to condone the delay. It is stated that meanwhile, the Rent Control Petition was listed for trial and it is posted to 8.12.2014. At that juncture, the petitioner, who is the second respondent in the Rent Control Petition, has filed this Original Petition (Rent Control) for issuing a direction to the Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose of R.C.A.Nos.25 and 26 of 2014 as expeditiously as possible. There is also a prayer for a direction to the Rent Control Court to keep in abeyance the proceedings in the Rent Control Petition till the disposal of R.C.A.Nos.25 and 26 of 2014. As an interim relief, the petitioner has prayed for staying all further proceedings in R.C.P.No.17 of 2009.
4. As per the direction in the judgment dated 3.9.2014 in O.P. (R.C.) No.102 of 2014, the Rent Control Court was directed to dispose of the Rent Control Petition as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, before 15.12.2014. The son of the original tenant who was waiting all these days from 3.9.2014, has now come up with this Original Petition (Rent Control) seeking to stay the proceedings before the Rent Control Court. As stated earlier, the father and son are residing in the same house. They took parallel proceedings before the Rent Control Court. Thereafter, after the dismissal of those applications, the father directly approached this Court and the son approached the Rent Control Appellate Authority. There was a likelihood of the Courts passing conflicting orders. At the time when O.P.(R.C.)No.102 of 2014 came up for hearing, the father did not disclose that his son had filed appeals before the Rent Control Appellate Authority or his son had separately filed application to set aside the exparte order and an application for condonation of delay. All these facts were suppressed. This Court disposed of O.P. (RC) No.102 of 2014 and directions were issued to the Rent Control Court. Now the son wants to protract the proceedings before the Rent Control Court. To our mind, this is a clear attempt to protract the proceedings. It cannot be countenanced at all. The Original Petition (Rent Control) lacks merits. We do not propose to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in a case where the parties acted without any bonafides.
Accordingly, the Original Petition (Rent Control) is dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge (P.D. RAJAN) Judge ahz/