PABBISETTI SEETHAMMA Vs. G. LAKSHMANA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole point involved in the revision proceeding by the landlord, who was able to obtain an ex parte order of eviction against the tenant, is a question of limitation. Under R. 18(3) of the Rules framed under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, XVIII of 1960:

(2.) In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the tenant did not apply within 30 days of the date of pronouncement of the order, strictly construed as such. But his case was that there was no service of summons with regard to the proceeding at all, and that he was in total ignorance of the proceeding and the ex parte order of eviction. As soon as he came to know of the existence of such an order, which was about three months after the order had been actually passed, he immediately applied to have the order set aside. The revision is against the order of the learned Second Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras holding this contention to be tenable, and directing the Rent Controller to find out whether the respondent (tenant) had knowledge only upon the occasion that he has claimed and not earlier.

(3.) Mr. Srisailam for the revision petitioner (landlord) contends that the plain English of the rule must be given effect to; had the Legislature intended that some other construction could possibly apply, such as the date of knowledge by the party affected, the necessary words would have been employed.