R KUMARESAN Vs. KEWALCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this civil revision petition is the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Tambaram. THE respondents are the landlords.

(2.) THE respondents filed the above R.C.O.P. under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking for an order to put them in possession of TT schedule property. Pending the R.C.O.P., the landlords filed I.A.No. 144 of 1997 under Section 11(4) of the Act. Since the tenant did not file counter, he was set ex parte on 13.11.97 and the tenant was given two weeks time to pay the rental arrears and the petition was directed to be posted on 27.11.97. On the said date eviction was ordered granting one month time to the tenant to vacate the petition mentioned premises. THE tenant thereafter filed M.P.No.21 of 1999 to condone the delay of 533 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order of eviction. THE said application came to be dismissed by the learned District Munsif cum Rent Controller by order dated 5.1.2001. It is against the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(3.) THE next judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in V.Janakamma v.. V.G.Rangaraj, 1973 L.W. 313 was a case where a petition filed by the tenant for restoration of the main application, that was rejected on the ground it was not maintainable as the previous order was not ex parte and the tenant was represented by counsel. In the present case, it is to be seen that the petition in I.A.No.144 of 1997 filed by the landlords under Section 11(4) was allowed on 13.11.97 with a direction to stop the further proceedings and giving two weeks time to the tenant to deposit the entire arrears of rent. THEreafter the application was posted on 27.1.97 and on the said date the consequential order of eviction was passed. It is not in dispute that the tenant/revision petitioner has neither preferred appeal as against the order in I.A.No.144 of 1997 dated 13.11.97 nor deposited the amount within the said time and allowed the Court to pass ex parte order of eviction on 27.11.97. THE ex parte order on 27.11.97 is nothing but the consequential order to the earlier order passed in I.A.No.144 of 1997 dated 13.11.97 passed on merits. In that view of the matter, the order passed on 27.11.97 in the main R.C.O.P.No.26 of 1997 cannot be called as an ex parte order.