LAWS(MAD)-1983-9-16

DOSKY MACHADO Vs. FRANCIS GOMES

Decided On September 01, 1983
DOSKY MACHADO Appellant
V/S
FRANCIS GOMES Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two matters have been posted before us on an order of reference, dated 19th November, 1981, passed by Mohan. J.

(2.) For the purpose of the determination of the question involved, we will refer to the facts of the case in C.R.P. No 3314 of 1981. The petitioner herein, who is the landlord, filed an application R.C.O.P. No. 80 of 1979 for eviction of the respondent on certain grounds The application for eviction was posted in the list. Since the respondent-tenant remained ex parte the Rent Controller has passed an ex parte order of eviction. Thereafter, after a lapse of some time, the respondent filed a petition LA. No 7 of 1981 to set aside the ex parte order of eviction which was opposed by the petitioner-landlord . The Rent Controller, however, passed, an order setting aside the ex parte order of eviction on condition that the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 50 as costs on or before 30th January, 1981, and that on failure, the petition for setting aside the ex parte order would stand dismissed. The respondent did not obey the Courts direction and the costs were not paid on or before 30th January, 1981. The result was the petition for setting aside the ex parte order stands dismissed.

(3.) Thereafter, the respondent filed an application, LA. No. 39 of 1981 under sections 148 and 151, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, for extension of time after receiving the order in I. A. No. 7 of 1981. I.A. No 39 of 1981 filed under sections 148 and 151, Civil Proccedure Code for extension of time granted in I.A No. 7 of 1981 by reviewing the said order was taken up for consideration by the Rent Controller. The said petition was opposed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the Rent Controller has no power to invoke sections 148 and 151, CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, to extend the time for payment. The Rent Controller accepted the contention of the petitioner-landlord and held that he had no power to review his order I.A. No. 7 of 1981. He therefore dismissed I.A. No, 39 of 1981.