ASLAM SAIT Vs. R KOKILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed by the tenant challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 46/2012 in R.C.A. CFR No. 2085 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Uthagamandalam. He is aggrieved in so far as the imposition of condition to deposit the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs. 2,24,000/- and the cost of Rs. 2,000/- while allowing his application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 571 days in preferring the appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

(2.) The petitioner as the tenant suffered an order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 5/2001 dated 24.01.2005. The learned Rent Controller though set the petitioner herein (second respondent therein) exparte as he did not appear before the Court, had however passed the order of eviction on merits. The petitioner after nearly 5 = years filed I.A. No. 46 of 2010 under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 2012 days in filing the set aside petition by contending that notice in R.C.O.P. was not served on him. The learned Rent Controller rejected the said application on 16.11.2010. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred C.R.P. No. 3547 of 2011. This Court by order dated 27.04.2012 dismissed the said C.R.P. however by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Thus he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority challenging the said order made in I.A. No. 46 of 2010 in R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 2001, with a delay of 571 days. Only to condone the said delay, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 46/2012. The Court below passed an elaborate order thereby allowing the application subject to condition that the petitioner should deposit the arrears of monthly rent from 09.02.2001 till 09.10.2012 at the rate of Rs. 1,600/- per month, thus, totally a sum of Rs. 2,24,000/- before the Appellate Authority on or before 07.11.2012 and on further payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the respondent/landlord on or before 07.11.2012. It was made clear in the said order that the failure of making such deposit and payment of cost will result in the dismissal of the application. The said order came to be passed on 15.10.2012. The petitioner filed the present civil revision petition challenging only the imposition of the condition in the said order as stated supra.

(3.) Learned counsel Mr. V.S. Sivasundaram appearing for the respondent/landlord submitted that the present civil revision petition has become infructuous in view of the fact that the court below has passed a subsequent order on 08.11.2012 dismissing I.A. No. 46/2012 on the reason that the petitioner herein has not complied with the condition. He further submitted that the said order finally made on 08.11.2012 has not been challenged by the petitioner so far. Therefore, he submitted that when the subsequent order passed has not been challenged and has become final, the petitioner cannot maintain the present civil revision petition any more and contest the same.