P.SHIVASANKARAN Vs. MARY JOHNSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the revision petitions are against the common judgment in R.C.P No.102 & 103 of 2011. A tenant, who was successful in the first round of litigation in getting a remand to the Rent Control Court could not get the benefit of the said order and in the second round, he became ex parte. Two applications were filed; one to set the aside the ex parte order and other to condone the delay. The Rent Control Court dismissed both the applications. The Appellate Authority concurred with the said finding. Against this, the revision petitions have been filed.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Santheep Ankarath and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Sri.S.Sreekumar in both the revision petitions.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a change of engagement of the counsel and, therefore, the petitioner could not take effective steps at that point of time, as no objection from the former counsel could not be obtained. It is submitted that from 10.1.2011 to 8.3.2011, he was under treatment with one Dr. Manju Mithra. R for severe low back ache due to inter vertebral disc prolapse. It is under the said circumstances, the petitioner had to file the application to set aside the ex parte order.