ABDULLA SARWAR Vs. TMT SNEHALATHA D RAJENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TENANT in R.C.O.P.No.252 of 1992 on the file of Rent Controller XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras is the revision petitioner.

(2.) EVICTION petition was filed by Mrs.Mane Devadasan seeking eviction of tenant from scheduled premises, on the ground that the building required for their occupation. Tenant received notice of eviction petition and also engaged counsel. Since no counter statement was filed in spite of various adjournment, Landlady's evidence was taken and on 1.10.1992, an order of eviction was passed. After getting order of eviction, landlady died on 26.8.1993. Respondent herein who is the only legal heir of landlady wanted to execute that order. But she was not party to the proceedings and unless she is impleaded, she cannot file execution petition. Therefore, along with execution petition, she filed M.P.No.700 of 1993 to get herself impleaded in the execution petition. Notice was ordered by executing court and the same was received by revision petitioner in December, 1993. After receipt of notice, revision petitioner filed M.P.No.152 of 1994 against deceased landlady to set aside the ex parte order. Rent Controller ordered notice on the same. Since no notice was taken, M.P.No.152 of 1994 was dismissed for default on 24.3.1994.

(3.) IN the grounds for revision it is said that the court below should have taken liberal view in condoning delay and once discretion has been exercised by the trial court, appellate authority should not have interfered with the sound discretion.