A S SHERKHAN Vs. R APPAJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's revision petition under S.50 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order passed by the, First Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore in HRC No.98 of 1969 dt.7-2-1973 dismissing the petitioner's application filed under Or.9, Rule 13 of the CPC read with Rule 29 of the Mysore Rent Control Rules.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed an application for eviction against the petitioner. During the pendency of the said application, I.A.No.1 was made by the landlord for taking action under S.29 of the Act. That matter was adjourned from time to time and finally an order was made on the 15th of April, 1969, which reads as follows :

(3.) Shri C. Srinivas Vakil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the view taken by the learned Munsiff is wrong. Rule 29 of the Mysore Rent Control Rules provides that any exparte order passed under the Act may be set aside on sufficient cause being shown for non- appearance and the provisions of Or.9 of the CPC, 1908 shall, as far as may be and with necessary medifications, be followed. The learned Munsiff was wrong in assuming that because the order was passed under Sec- 29 of the Act that the petitioner could not have taken advantage of Rule 29 of the Rules and the provisions of Or.9 of the CPC. I also find it difficult to agree with the learned Munsiff that the order passed was not an exparte order. The facts and circumstances of the case, which I have narrated above, clearly show that the order passed on the 27th of November, 1969 was an exparte order, the same having been passed in the absence of the tenant as well as his Counsel.