JULLUNDER D AND N MFG CO Vs. JAYADEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is at the instance of respondents tenants in R.C.P. 190/92. Rent control petition was dismissed on 4.8.1994 on the failure of the petitioner to appear on that day. IA. 3175/94 was filed to restore rent control petition which was dismissed for default The petition was allowed by the rent control authority by order dated. 7.2.1996 on payment of cost of 500/- to the respondents. Aggrieved by the above, respondents tenants took up the matter in appeal before the rent control appellate authority as R.C. A. 74/96. A reading of the above order would show that even though the contention had been taken in the memorandum of appeal that rent control court has no power for restoration since the provisions of O.9 R.9 C.P.C. is not applicable to rent control proceeding, that argument was not seriously pressed before the appellate authority. The appeal was argued on merits and, as mentioned above, the same was dismissed.

(2.) In this revision petition, petitioner has again taken up the contention that I.A. 3175/94 filed under O.9 R.9 was not maintainable as this Court has held that the provisions of O.9 R.9 are not applicable to rent control proceedings. Reliance was placed by learned counsel on a decision of a Single Judge of this Court in K.P. Pius v. Mrs. Albina Rozario & Anr., 1989 (2) KLJ 643 in support of the above contention.

(3.) O.9 R.9(1) reads as follows: