IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 R.C.Rev..No. 246 of 2009 ------------------------ RCA.32/2009 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD RCP.65/2005 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------- IQBAL, S/O. KUNJUMON, AGDD 27 YEARS, 31/673, MARKET ROAD, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.R. SREENIVASA IYYER, S/O. LATE VENKITESWARA IYYER, AGED 76 YEARS, NOORANI GRAMAM, PIRAYARI AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. K.M. RAHMATH, W/O. LATE KUNJUMON, YARATHINGAL, PALLIPPURAM, KALLIKKAD, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. IYSHUMMA.U.K, W/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, 10/411, POOCHIRA, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. SUHARA.U.K, W/O. KABEER, KARUPPAN VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, KALLIKKD, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. ARAFATH.U.K, S/O. LATE KUNJUMON, KARUPPAN VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, KALLIKKAD, PALAKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R.C.Rev..No. 246 of 2009 6. ARSHAD.U.K, S/O. LATE KUNJUMON, KARUPPAN VEEDU, PALLIPPURAM, KALLIKKAD, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 7. ABHILA.U.K, W/O. MUJEEB RAHIMAN, CHANDANAMKURUSSI, NURANI.P.O, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8. FATHIMA.U.K, D/O. LATE KUNJUMON, CHANDANAMKURUSSI, NURANI.P.O, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SHRI BENOY VASUDEVAN. R2 TO R8 BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM) THIS RENT CONTROL REVISION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ........................................................................ R.C.R.No. 246 OF 2009 ......................................................................... Dated this the 2nd December , 2009 O R D E R P.R. Raman, J: The Revision Petitioner is the appellant facing eviction proceedings in the Rent Control Petition, instituted by the first respondent/landlord under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building (Lease & Rent Control)Act, 1965. 2. The case was posted on several occasions before the Rent Control Court and when it came up for trial on 03.09.2008, he was absent and he was set exparte, Subsequently, he filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order of eviction on the ground that he was suffering from acute Asthma and he was laid up . In support of his case, he had produced a medical certificate, a copy of the same was produced and marked as Annexure-I. However, the doctor ( a Homoeo Medical Officer) who issued the medical certificate was not examined in the case. Though in the order R.C.R.No. 246 OF 2009 2 passed by the Rent Control Court, it is stated that not even a medical certificate was produced, obviously, that may only be a mistake. Possibly, along with the application for condonation of delay, the certificate issued by the doctor might have been produced. But, a mere production of a certificate, unless it is proved as contemplated by law, cannot be looked into, ordinarily. 3. However, we will consider as to whether the medical certificate produced could be acted upon by the Court, as a proof of the appellant's illness on the alleged day of his absence. The medical certificate is dated 01.09.2008. It was certified that the absence from duty for a period of '67' days w.e.f. 01.09.2008 is absolutely necessary for restoration of patient's health. How exactly, a Homoeo Doctor could say that '67' days will be required for such restoration of health? It is something which cannot be believed to be true. What could have happened really is this: The medical certificate was obtained for the purpose of producing the same before the Court. So when he visited the doctor to obtain the certificate, possibly, it might have been the R.C.R.No. 246 OF 2009 3 67th day from 01.09.2008. But the doctor put the date as 01.09.2008, instead of the date on which the certificate was actually issued. Any way, the appellate Court also endorsed the view of the Rent Control Court and dismissed the Appeal. 4. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that he has a good case on merits and that the doctor who issued the certificate was the doctor who attended on him, as he is an asthma patient. It is further submitted that the discrepancy with regard to the date on which the certificate was actually issued might be due to a mistake on the part of the medical officer. According to the appellant, he was actually ill on 01.09.2008 because of acute asthma and he was prevented by sufficient cause in not appearing before the Court on the date on which he was set ex parte. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondents would contend that this is not the first time that the Revision Petitioner was set ex parte and that on two earlier occasions also, he was set ex parte. It is submitted that, therefore, it is a fit case where no R.C.R.No. 246 OF 2009 4 leniency can be shown. However considering the fact that the petitioner is a tenant facing eviction proceedings, the ex parte order could be set aside on the factual situation, but only on terms and also fixing a time limit within which the Rent Control Court should dispose of the matter finally. This will meet the ends of justice and prevent any prejudice being caused. Since by fixing the time limit, in case there is any non-appearance by the petitioner/appellant herein, necessarily the Court will be bound to proceed with the case and no further opportunity will be given to him to contest the matter on merits. In that view of the matter, we allow this Revision on compassionate ground, however on terms. The order of the Rent Control Court and also the Rent Control Appellate Authority will stand set aside on condition that the appellant pays or deposits a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) before the court below/Rent Control Court within two weeks from today. On such an event, the Rent Control Court will proceed to dispose of the R.C.R.No. 246 OF 2009 5 case afresh, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Revision Petitioner and the respondents shall appear before the Rent Control Court on 18.12.2009. The Rent Control Revision is allowed as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk