The Kerala High Court as of late declined to permit an application that looked for to mitigate the delay of 1062 days in leaning toward the Audit Appeal since the candidate had fizzled to form out a adequate cause for the intemperate delay.
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice T.R Ravi observed, “We have no doubt our intellect that usually a clear case of manhandle of prepare of this Court. The solicitors have not one or the other made out any case on merits nor have they given us a valid reason to gloss the delay of over 1000 days. In spite of the fact that this can be an famously fit case for burden of excellent costs, in see of the intense entries of the learned advise, we cease from doing so.”
The ‘chequered history of the case at hand is as follows.
The respondent in this was the proprietor of a multi storied building which was rented out to a Nationalized Bank, viz the petitioner.
In 2009, the respondent looked for obsession of reasonable lease beneath Area 5 (1) of the Kerala Buildings
(Rent and Lease Control) Act, 1965. In 2012, the Rent Control Court settled the reasonable lease at Rs 40/ per square foot.
Although the over arrange was challenged, it was affirmed by the Appellate Authority and from there on by the High Court as well in 2017.
However, with respect to the locus standi of the proprietor to preserve a appeal to induce the lease re-fixed, the High Court coordinated the matter to be remanded back because it felt that persuasive materials were missing before the Subordinate Courts to settle the lease at Rs 40/sqft.
After the remand, the Lease Control Court settled the reasonable lease at Rs. 35/- per square feet, which was maintained by the Appellate Court and the High Court in 2020.
From that point, the candidates chose to record a Survey Appeal looking for to survey the Orders of this High Court passed in 2017 and 2020 respectively.
“We discover no reason to palliate the delay or to engage this Audit Appeal. We discover that none of the disputes raised by the applicants within the audit request was ever raised by the applicants at the time of recording R.C.R. No. 154/2014. The order of remand passed within the Revision Appeal was sought after and the applicants had showed extra prove before the Rent Control Court. The arrange passed by this Court has worked itself out. The arrange passed by the Lease Control Court after the remand was maintained by the Re-appraising Authority,”
The orders passed by the subordinate courts were challenged before the High Court however again through a Revision Appeal. Considering all the disputes raised by the solicitors, the High Court denied to interfere.
“It shows up to us that the solicitors are endeavouring a novel frame of Gathering Shopping, it remarked.
Accordingly, the Court held that this was a clear case of abuse of process of law. The application was as such dismissed
along with the unnumbered review petition.
Senior Advocate Ramesh Babu appeared for the petitioners as instructed by Advocate C. Muralikrishnan while Advocate Praveen K Joy represented the respondent.
Case Title: Canara Bank & Ors v. Deva Properties Ltd.