SELVI Vs. NATARAJA MUDALIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision arises from an order in a Rent Control Petition. Revision petitioners are respondents tenants of the building sought to be evicted by respondent landlord. Petitioners failed to appear on the dale of hearing and after setting them ex parte the Rent Control Court allowed the application. Petitioners moved the Rent Control Court by I.A.2056/1989 to get the ex parte order set aside. Another petition was also filed as I.A. 2035/1989 to excuse the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order. The reason for the absence is alleged to be the illness of petitioners. Respondent resisted the petition. The Rent Control Court after hearing both sides dismissed both the petitions by a common order dt.1-1-1990. The reason for the absence was not satisfactorily explained according to the Rent Control Court and the reason for the delay was also not established. On appeal Addl. District Court, Palakkad concurred with that order and dismissed the appeal. The appellate court further stated that the petition to set aside the ex parte order is barred by limitation and S.5 of the Limitation Act docs not apply to the Rent Control Court so as to enable petitioners to get the delay in filing the petition excused. Hence the revision.

(2.) Heard counsel on both sides.

(3.) It is argued in the main that S.5 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings before the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority. S.5 reads as follows: