Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This revision petition under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is against a judgment by which the rent control appellate authority dismissed an appeal against an order refusing to set aside an ex parte order of eviction under Section 11(3) of Act 2 of 1965.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The rent control petition was filed pleading that the landlady needs the building for occupation of her daughter-in-law to commence a trade in computer peripherals, etc. Going by the order of the rent control court, the tenant filed objections, but remained ex parte at trial. Ext.C1 commissioner's report was also available before the rent control court. Exts.A1 and A2 are the lawyer's notice and the postal acknowledgment.
4. After the ex parte order of eviction was passed, the stand of the tenant appears to be that he did not have knowledge of what transpired after he had initially engaged an advocate. The learned counsel for the respondent, quite rightly, points out that materials before the courts below indicate that the tenant had received notice on execution proceedings as well. When the application for setting aside the ex parte order was decided against the tenant, he filed an appeal, and having lost that, he has filed this revision. The memorandum of appeal before the rent control appellate authority and this revision petition contain grounds which appear to be mutually contradictory. May be, as an attempt to cling on to the last available straw, the tenant started accusing the advocates appeared for him, or who, going by the records, had appeared for him. With all that, when the revision petition came up initially for consideration, the Bench had indicated that there was no material or affidavit in support of the allegations made in paragraph Nos.2, 3 and 4 of the revision petition raising allegation against two advocates. The revision petitioner was, therefore, directed to be present in person. He is present. He has filled an affidavit as well. In the light of that, his personal appearance is discharged.
5. We have examined the ex parte order issued by the rent control court directing eviction on ground of bona fide need. The tenant has, in open court, vouchsafed in answer to the query raised by us that he had filed objections to the rent control petition. Therefore, while it may not be proper for us to accept the different allegations made by him against the members of the bar, we think that the revision petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest the case from the stage it stood on the day, 05.09.2013 on which day, the ex parte order was issued. This can, however, be only on terms as to costs and a reasonable time frame within which the rent control petition has to be, ultimately, decided.
6. The rent control court has, in our view, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to set aside the ex parte order to the extent it was necessary to render justice to the parties. We are satisfied that sufficient cause was shown for setting aside the ex parte order. The appellate authority has also, therefore, erred in affirming the said decision of the rent control court. Therefore, this revision is entitled to succeed, on terms.
In the result, this revision is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and the order of the rent control court on I.A.No.6185 of 2013 in R.C.P. No.21 of 2012 and directing that R.C.P. No.21 of 2012 will be further considered in the light of what is stated above providing the tenant an opportunity to cross examine the deponent of the affidavit filed on behalf of the landlady. Any further evidence, which may be found necessary for the landlady, can also be adduced. This shall be on condition that the revision petitioner pays the respondent through the counsel appearing for her before this Court an amount of `5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as costs within a period of two weeks from today.
Parties are directed to mark appearance before the rent control court on 26.11.2014. The rent control court will thereupon give priority for final disposal of the matter and list it appropriately, so that the rent control petition can be decided without delay, that is to say, within a period of three months from the date on which the parties will appear before that court.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg