Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a rent control eviction proceeding under Section 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The petitioner, a partnership firm represented by its partner, challenged an ex parte eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Control Court, Kannur dated 05.11.2025 in RCP No.46/2025, alleging lack of notice. Execution proceedings were initiated in E.P. No.106/2026 before the Principal Munsiff Court, Kannur. The petitioner filed applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay and recall of the ex parte order. The Principal Munsiff Court dismissed the Section 5 application by Exhibit-P8 order dated 30.05.2026. The Additional Rent Control/Munsiff Court also passed a common order Exhibit-P10 on I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2026. The petitioner preferred RCA 86/2026 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority as Exhibit-P11. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 via OP(RC) No.105 of 2026. The petitioner contended that it had no notice of the rent control proceedings and that the ex parte order ought to be recalled. The respondents argued that the petitioner received notice of execution proceedings at the same address where earlier notices were returned unclaimed, implying service. The High Court did not examine merits but observed that the matter should be heard on merits since the petitioner had appeared. To balance equities, it imposed a condition precedent that the petitioner deposit Rs.60 lakhs before the Rent Control Court within two weeks. It also directed the petitioner to file an undertaking to deposit admitted rent month by month during pendency. The Court clarified that if the petitioner had already paid some amount, it would be entitled to adjustment or refund; if there was shortfall, the Rent Control Court would pass peremptory directions. On compliance with these conditions, Exhibit-P8 and Exhibit-P10 orders of the Munsiff Court and Exhibit-P11 RCA before the Rent Control Appellate Authority were to stand set aside and struck off. The Court granted an unconditional stay of the impugned order and execution proceedings for two weeks; in default of deposit, execution proceedings were to continue and conclude within a reasonable time. The High Court made clear it had not gone into merits and left the Rent Control Court to decide in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Ex Parte Order Recall - Condition of Deposit - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 11(2)(b) - Petitioner challenged ex parte eviction order for alleged non-service; court observed petitioner received execution notice at same address where earlier notices were returned unclaimed, but permitted contest on merits subject to deposit of Rs.60 lakhs as condition precedent. Held that deposit of Rs.60 lakhs within two weeks is condition precedent for recalling ex parte order and enabling Rent Control Court to hear matter on merits (Paras 2-4). B) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Dismissal of Section 5 application by Munsiff Court was set aside, subject to compliance with deposit condition. Held that orders Exhibit-P8 and P10 of Munsiff Court and Exhibit-P11 RCA stand set aside and struck off on compliance (Paras 2-5). C) Rent Control - Payment of Admitted Rent During Pendency - Undertaking - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 11(2)(b) - Court directed petitioner to file undertaking to deposit admitted rent month by month during pendency; default allows Rent Control Court to pass appropriate orders. Held that monthly deposit is necessary safeguard for landlord's interest (Paras 4-5). D) Rent Control - Stay of Execution Proceedings - Conditional Stay - Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, Section 11(2)(b) - Court granted unconditional stay of impugned order and execution proceedings for two weeks to enable deposit; if deposit not made, execution to continue and conclude. Held that stay is limited and conditional upon deposit compliance (Paras 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the ex parte eviction order recalled and be allowed to contest original rent control proceedings on merits, despite alleged lack of notice, and whether the dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be set aside, subject to conditions
Final Decision
The High Court conditionally allowed the OP(RC). It permitted the petitioner to contest the original rent control proceedings subject to depositing Rs.60 lakhs before the Rent Control Court within two weeks. The petitioner was directed to file an undertaking to deposit admitted rent month by month during pendency. On compliance, Exhibit-P8 and Exhibit-P10 orders of the Munsiff Court and Exhibit-P11 RCA before the Rent Control Appellate Authority were to stand set aside and struck off. Unconditional stay of impugned order and execution proceedings was granted for two weeks. In default of deposit within two weeks, execution proceedings were to continue and conclude within a reasonable time. The court did not go into merits and left the Rent Control Court to decide in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Ex parte order can be recalled to allow merits
- deposit as condition precedent for recalling ex parte order
- execution proceedings may be stayed conditionally
- undertaking required for monthly admitted rent
- no adjudication on merits
- Rent Control Court to decide in accordance with law
