S ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. JUGRAJI HIRAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petitioner/Appellant/Tenant has filed these two Revision Petitions as against the common order dated 29.7.2009 in R.C.A.Nos.170 & 171 of 2009 passed by the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in confirming the order dated 29.4.2009 in M.P.Nos.735 & 736 of 2009 passed by the XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) The Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in its common order dated 29.07.l2009 in R.C.A.Nos.170 & 171 of 2009, has among other things observed that 'non payment of cost by the tenant on an application by him to set aside an exparte decree is only an efforts to prolong the proceedings under the arm of law which cannot be allowed and resultantly, confirmed the order of dismissal passed in M.P.No.736/09 and in M.P.No.735/09'.

(3.) According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner, the orders of the First Appellate Authority in R.C.A.Nos.170 & 171 of 2009 dated 29.07.2009 are against law, evidence and probabilities of the case and in fact, the First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the Learned Rent Controller has committed an error in not entering the orders pronounced in the 'A' Diary particularly the orders were entered only in the RCOP diary and not in the Execution Petition diary and the E.P. diary only reflected the adjudication as M.P. pending but nothing else was recorded in the E.P. diary and therefore, the Revision Petitioner's Learned Counsel was mislead by the above entry.