IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 RCRev..No. 335 of 2011() ------------------------------------ I.A .223/2011 IN RCA.2/2009 OF RENT CONTROL APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE. RCP.58/2007 OF ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROL COURT/ ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT-II, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN RCA/RESPONDENT IN RCP: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. VELAYUDHAN KUTTY, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, BUNGLAVE PARAMBIL, VELIPRAM AMSOM, KARINKALLAI DESOM, P.O.FEROKE COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. NASAR, S/O.P.A. ALIKOYA, N.K. VEGETABLES, SHOP NO.6/660A, MARKET ROAD, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ, SMT.M.SHAJNA. RESPONDENTSRESPONDENT IN RCA/PETITIONER IN RCP: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BHARATHAN, S/O.CHOYI, POTTIYANVEETIL HOUSE, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673 003. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR. THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2011, ALONG WITH RCR NO. 336 OF 2011 AND RCR NO. 337 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------- R.C.R.Nos.335, 336 & 337 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011. O R D E R C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. The common petitioners in all these three revision petitions are the tenants/respondents in R.C.P.No.58/07, on the files of the Additional Rent Control court-II, Kozhikode. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction on the grounds under Section 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(iii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965. The revision petitioners instituted R.C.A.No.2 of 2009 against the order of eviction, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. When the appeal was posted for hearing on 5.2.2011, counsel for the appellant could not attend the court and argue the matter. An adjournment was granted on condition of payment of cost of Rs.750/-. But on the next posting date, ie., on 14.2.2011, further default was committed in payment of the cost ordered and there was no representation for the appellant. Hence the appeal was dismissed for default along 2 R.C.R.Nos.335, 336 & 337 of 2011 with awarding of cost. The petitioner filed I.A.No.223 of 2011 before the appellate authority praying for restoration of the appeal. The appellate authority had dismissed the said application with cost of Rs.500/-. 2. R.C.R.No.335 of 2011 is filed against the order dismissing I.A.No.223 of 2011 in R.C.A.No.2 of 2009. R.C.R.No.336 of 2011 is filed against the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 5.2.2011, adjourning the case to 14.2.2011 on ordering cost of Rs.750/-. R.C.R.No.337 of 2011 is filed against the judgment of the appellate authority dismissing the rent control appeal. 3. We heard arguments of Sri.K.M.Firoz, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, as well as Sri.P.R.Sreejith, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is evident that there occurred consecutive latches on the part of the counsel for the appellant in not prosecuting the appeal. According to the appellant, the cost could not be paid before 14.2.2011 because there was lack of communication from the side of the counsel, regarding 3 R.C.R.Nos.335, 336 & 337 of 2011 the imposition of the cost. Even though there occurred negligence and latches on the part of the counsel, we are of the opinion that a lenient view ought to have been taken in the matter of disposal of I.A.No.223 of 2011, through which restoration of the appeal was sought for. It is settled through precedents of the Honourable Apex Court that as far as possible causes should be adjudicated and decided on merits rather than deciding the same on procedural defaults and technicalities. But at the same time we feel that, stringent conditions need be incorporated for compensating the latches and negligence on the part of revision petitioners and his counsel appearing before the appellate authority. 4. In the result, the revision petitions are allowed. The impugned judgments and orders of the appellate authority are hereby set aside. The Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority (IInd Additional District Judge), Kozhikode is directed to restore the appeal, R.C.A.No.2/2009, on its files and to dispose of the same on merits, after hearing the parties, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of 3 4 R.C.R.Nos.335, 336 & 337 of 2011 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, subject to the following conditions :- 1.The revision petitioners are directed to pay cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) to the respondent through his counsel appearing in this Court within ten days from today and to produce the receipt thereof before the Appellate Court. 2. The revision petitioners/tenants are directed to make payment of arrears of rent due from December 2010 onwards till date, @ Rs.1,000/- month within a period of one month from today. The Appellate Authority will dismiss the case in case of failure to comply with the above conditions. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ami/