IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24376 of 2009(N) -------------------------- RCA.30/2009 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM RCP.151/2006 of PRL.M.C.,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALLEPPEY SERVODAYA SANGH, PALLARIMANGALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA REPRESENTED BY ADMINISTRATOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAIMOL KURUVILA-REPRESENTED BY MARIAMMA ABRAHAM, PALAKKAL HOUSE, KALAMASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI. K.N.SIVASANKARAN FOR R SUNIL SANKAR SRI.P.VISWANATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ WPC No.24376 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 28h day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed by the tenant against whom an ex – parte order of eviction has been passed in RCP 151/2006. The petitioner filed interlocutory application for getting the ex parte order set aside before the Rent Control Court. But. that court dismissed that application. The petitioner has filed RCA 30/2009 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Ernakulam. But, since the appeal was preferred out of time, the petitioner became obliged to file application for condonation of delay. In the meanwhile, the Execution Court ordered delivery noticing the circumstance that the appellate court had not ordered stay of execution proceedings. 2. Pursuant to our directions, copy of the writ petition was served on Advocate Sri.P. Viswanathan, who has taken notice on behalf of the respondent landlord. 3. We have heard Sri.K.Anand, learned counsel for the WPC.No. 24376/2009 2 revision petitioner and Sri.P.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the respondent landlord. Even though Sri.Anand very persuasively submitted that an opportunity ought to be granted to the petitioner Sangh for contesting the RCP on merits, his last submission was that what the writ petitioner really requires is reasonable time in the matter of surrendering premises so that alternate arrangements can be made for continuing the business of the petitioner Sangam. Sri.Anand sought for 18 months time. The request was very stiffly opposed by Sri.Viswanathan. 4. Having considered the rival submissions and taking into account the circumstance that the eviction order, which is now passed against the petitioner is an ex-parte one, we feel that there is justification for granting atleast one year's time to the petitioner for surrendering the premises. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition issuing the following directions; i). The writ petitioner shall file an affidavit before the Appellate Authority on or before 8/9/2009 stating that the petitioner shall peacefully and unconditionally surrender possession of the building, which is subject matter WPC.No. 24376/2009 3 of the Rent Control Appeal, to the respondent on or before 31/8/2010. It will also be stated in the affidavit that the rent at the current rent rate will be paid without fail till such time the petitioner makes actual surrender. ii). Once the Appellate Authority notices the affidavit as directed above, that authority will dispose of the appeal directing the Execution Court not to order and effect delivery of the petition schedule building till 31/8/2010. It is made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of time granted under this judgment only if affidavit is filed on time. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk WPC.No. 24376/2009 4