IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RCRev..No. 128 of 2010() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1636/2007 IN RCA.24/2004 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM RCOP.4/2003 of MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... REVN.PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------- RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, LEKSHMI NILAYAM, THEVALLY, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM, FROM LEKSHMI NILAYAM, KALAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ THOMAS P.VARGHESE, CHRISITY VILLA, ELAMPAL MURI, VILAKKUDY VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G FOR R1 THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.C.R.No.128 OF 2010 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision filed under Section 20 is the order passed by the First Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam in I.A. No.1636/2007 in RCA No.24/2004. The RCA was filed by the revision petitioner against an order passed by the rent control court dismissing the rent control petition. The RCA was dismissed for default. Seeking restoration of the RCA, which was dismissed for default, the petitioner filed I.A. No.1623/2007. I.A. No. 1636/2007 was filed seeking condonation of the delay of 104 days, which had been caused in the matter of filing I.A. No.1623/2007. 2. Under the impugned order, the learned appellate authority has dismissed I.A. No. 1636/2007. The ground raised for condoning the delay was that the petitioner/appellant was laid up due to 'Amavatham' , a rheumatic ailment. Before the appellate authority, the petitioner alone gave evidence as PW1 RCR.No.128/2010 2 and marked Ext.P1 which was a medical certificate issued by an Ayurvedic Physician who had treated the revision petitioner. No counter evidence was adduced at all by the respondent for substantiating the objection which had been filed. The appellate authority did not become inclined to allow the application. It was because, the PW1 in his evidence would place some blame for dismissal of the appeal for default on the advocate who was previously appearing for him. 3. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds have been raised assailing the impugned order and we have heard the submissions of Sri.C.Rajendran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in detail. All the submissions of Mr.Rajendran were forcefully resisted by Sri.G.Ajaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Having considered the rival submissions, we feel that the learned appellate authority should have allowed I.A. No.1636/2007 and also I.A. No.1623/2007 by putting the petitioner to terms. We, are therefore, inclined to interfere with the impugned order and allow those two I.As on conditions. RCR.No.128/2010 3 5. The result of the above discussion is as follows; i). The impugned order as well as the consequential order dismissing I.A. No.1623/2007 passed by the appellate authority will stand set aside and both I.A. Nos.1636/2007 & 1623/2007 will stand allowed and RCA No.24/2004 will stand restored back to the files of the First Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Kollam subject to the following conditions; a). The revision petitioner pays a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs to the respondent either directly or through the respondent's counsel in this court within ten days from today and produces receipt before the appellate authority,Kollam. b). The revision petitioner pays a further sum of Rs.1,000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee within the same period and produces receipt before the appellate authority, Kollam. ii). Once the appellate authority notices receipts against the payment of both the amounts, this order will become RCR.No.128/2010 4 operative and the learned appellate authority will post the RCA for hearing and disposal to a convenient date. It is needless to mention that if the conditions imposed herein are not complied with, the impugned order will stand confirmed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE dpk