K.T.Sankaran, J. The respondent filed R.C.P.No.7 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Thiruvananthapuram under Sections 11(2) (b), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, against the petitioner. The petitioner/tenant entered appearance before the Rent Control Court and filed an objection. However, the petitioner/tenant failed to appear at the time of trial and he was set ex parte. The Rent Control Court passed an ex parte order of eviction on all the grounds claimed by the landlord, by the order dated 03.07.2013.
2. The petitioner/tenant filed I.A.No.2351 of 2014 to set aside the ex parte order of eviction. There was delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order and to condone the same, the petitioner/tenant filed I.A.No.2352 of 2014. Though the extent of delay is not filled up in the copy of the application for condonation of delay produced by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the extent of delay is 215 days. The application for condoning the delay is pending disposal before the Rent Control Court. Meanwhile, the respondent/landlord initiated execution proceedings as E.P.No.308 of 2013 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is submitted that delivery was ordered. At that juncture, the petitioner/tenant filed this original petition with a prayer to stay the proceedings in the execution petition pending disposal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte order.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord that the tenant has not even paid the arrears of rent. It is submitted that the tenant is working abroad and he has sublet the building. The learned counsel also pointed out that though the Rent Control Court directed the tenant to produce the passport while dealing with the application filed by the landlord, the tenant did not produce the same. It is submitted that the petitioner/tenant is not entitled to any discretionary relief.
5. The petitioner had filed objections in the Rent Control Petition. However, he was set ex parte at the time of trial. He has filed an application to set aside the ex parte order with a petition for condoning the delay. Whether the delay is liable to be condoned, is a matter to be considered by the Rent Control Court. Meanwhile, if delivery is taken, the application filed by the tenant would become infructuous. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the view, that in the interests of justice, it is necessary to direct the Rent Control Court to consider and dispose of the application for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order, keeping in abeyance the execution proceedings till then. However, such a facility can be granted to the tenant only if he deposits the entire arrears of rent (as claimed in the Rent Control Petition) including the rent for May, 2014.
Accordingly, the O.P.(RC) is allowed in the following manner:
(a). The Rent Control Court shall consider and dispose of I.A.No.2352 of 2014 in R.C.P.No.7 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within two months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties.
(b). The petitioner/tenant shall deposit before the Rent Control Court for payment to the respondent/landlord the entire arrears of rent (at the rate claimed in the Rent Control Petition) including the rent for May, 2014, within two weeks from today.
(c). The executing court shall keep in abeyance the execution petition till the disposal of I.A.No.2352 of 2014 in R.C.P.No.7 of 2012.
(d). If the petitioner/tenant fails to deposit the arrears of rent as aforesaid within two weeks from today, the execution shall be proceeded forthwith.
Sd/-
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln /True copy/ P.A. to Judge