IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP (RC).No. 561 of 2010(O) -------------------------------- I.A.1131/10 IN RCA.134/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY I.A.359/2010 IN RCP NO.80/09 OF ADDL. RENT CONTROLLER (ADDL. MUNSIFF), KANNUR .................... PETITIONER:- --------------- SONA SURENDRANATH, KOODOLI HOUSE, NADAL, EDAKKAD P.O., KANNUR – 63. BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- VELLASSERY RADHIKA, TTXL/795, KANNUR - 670001 THIS OP (RENT CONTROL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ O. P. [RC] No.561 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this O.P. filed under Article 227 is Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Thalassery. Under Ext.P3, the learned Appellate Authority has found that the Rent Control Appeal was legally maintainable and that the Appellate Authority on the basis of that finding extended the stay which had been ordered ex parte till disposal of the appeal. 2. Sri.V.Premchand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority granted stay without noticing a caveat which had been lodged by the O. P. [RC] No.561 of 2010 -2- petitioner/landlady in anticipation of the appeal. Learned counsel also submitted that the order impugned in this appeal passed by the Rent Control Court was perfectly in order as the respondent sought cancellation of an ex parte order of eviction on the basis of a false affidavit. 3. Even though Sri.Premchand was very persuasive in his submissions, we do not find any justification for interfering with Ext.P3 order and that too in the visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227. The petitioner landlady had a genuine grievance that the caveat which she had lodged in anticipation of the appeal and the stay petition went unnoticed and that ex parte order of stay came to be passed. Probably the office of the Appellate Authority was to blame for this. But it is difficult for us to accept the argument that the O. P. [RC] No.561 of 2010 -3- appeal will become not maintainable because of that. If as a matter of fact, it was a false affidavit that was filed by the respondent before the Rent Control Court, it is always open to the petitioner to appraise the Appellate Authority of that fact and to argue for dismissal of the appeal. We dispose of the O.P. declining jurisdiction. But we direct the learned Appellate Authority to expedite matters in the RCA and ensure that the RCA is disposed of early in view of the circumstances under which the ex parte order of stay came to be passed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-