MOORTHY Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the tenant of a residential building belonging to the respondent, the rent being Rs. 500/- per month. The landlord issued notice of eviction on 21-11-1989 alleging arrears of rent from 1-6-1988 and claiming vacant possession of the premises on the ground of his bona fide need for own occupation. The tenant - petitioner replied refuting the claim for arrears of rent pointing out that periodical payments had been made and that rent was due only for a lesser period. He also pointed out that the landlord had granted him eleven months time to vacate the house on 20-10-1989, that it was not practicable for him to vacate within the period of one month mentioned in the notice and that he wanted atleast six months more to vacate. He stated that he will not in any case, overstay the eleven months' time already allowed by the landlord. At the same time, he mentioned that if the landlord chose to go ahead with his petition for eviction he will not have any alternative but to resist the same according to law.

(2.) The landlord filed, the petition for eviction on 10-1-1990. The tenant filed his written statement on 12-11-1990 in which he claimed that he had cleared the rent upto June 1989, and that subsequent payments were not made, only because the landlord's mother refused to receive the rent. He also contended that there was no bona fides in the claim of bona fide need set up by the landlord. He pointed out that he was ready to vacate, provided sufficient time was allowed to complete the religious ceremonies and formalities in connection with the death of his wife on 3rd June, 1990.

(3.) After the written statement was filed, the matter was posted to 1-12-1990 for trial and then to 14-12-1990, on which date it was ordered to be included in the special list for trial on 8-1-1991. On that dale, the tenant petitioner and his counsel were absent. The landlord was examined, exhibits were marked and the petition for eviction was allowed. This ex parte order was sought to be set aside by the petitioner by filing LA. No. 2444 of 1991 on 22-3-1991 together with an application LA. No. 2443 of 1991 for condonation of the delay of forty three days in filing the said application. Petitioner's case was that he had been informed by his counsel that the case stood adjourned from 14-12-1990 to 8-3-1991. In the meanwhile, he was suffering from hypertension and had been advised bed rest. He was therefore unable to participate in the trial on 8-3-1991. He sent messenger to his advocate on 5-3-1991 to seek an adjournment on 8-3-1991. Accordingly an application was filed for the purpose on 6-3-1991. His advocate waited in court on 8-3-1991for the case to be called, and knew only then that the case had been disposed of on 6-1-1991 itself. He realised the mistake committed in his office in noting the case as having been posted on 8-3-1991 when actually it had been adjourned to 6-1-1991. The petitioner was informed, and the aforesaid applications were filed. I.A. No, 2442 of 1991 was supported by the affidavit of the advocate himself while I.A. No. 2444 of 1991, the other application, was supported by the affidavit of the petitioner.