N PRABHU Vs. C JOHN KENNADY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against the Order dated 21.12.2009, in I.A. No. 291 of 2008, in R.C.O.P. No. 121 of 2006, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore. The Petitioner is the Tenant and the Respondent is the Landlord. The Respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 121 of 2006 under Sections 10(3)(c) & 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It was contended by the Respondent-Landlord that the Petitioner became a Tenant in respect of the premises measuring about 138 square feet during 1998 for a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- and stated that he proposed to run a fast food restaurant during evening time every day. However, the Petitioner started to use the place as a slaughter house and committed various action of nuisance and the entire area became unhygienic causing serious health hazards. City Municipal Corporation issued several Notices and in spite of the same, the Petitioner failed to maintain hygienic atmosphere. In the meantime, the Landlord started his own business in the name of M/s. Golden Eagle Security Services in the rear side of the Petition mentioned premises. But, he requires place for the security guards to reside and since the next shop is run by the Petitioner was in such a unhygienic manner with bad-odour of rotten meat. Therefore, the Landlord called upon the Petitioner to vacate the premises. Immediately, the Petitioner filed a Suit in O.S. No. 242 of 2004, seeking for an Order of Interim Injunction. Thereafter, the Landlord filed the Eviction Petition and produced certain documents to support his contention that he is running Security Agency successfully. Though, the Petitioner received Notice in the Eviction Petition, he did not appear before the Court and did not filed Counter Statement and consequently an ex parte Order of Eviction was passed on 20.3.2008. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed I.A. No. 291 of 2008 to condone the delay of 173 days in filing the Application to set aside the ex parte Decree. The only reason given in the Affidavit is that he is suffering from viral fever and therefore, could not contact his Counsel. The Application was vehemently opposed by the Landlord by denying the allegations made by the Petitioner stating that the Petitioner has not substantiated the averment that he was unwell. The Court below after taking into consideration the case of both parties dismissed the Application holding that the reason given by the Petitioner is not supported by any evidence. Challenging the same, the Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that a liberal approach should have been adopted in the matter and the Court below failed to condone the delay without considering the fact that the Petitioner was suffering from viral fever and could not contact his Counsel. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:

(3.) Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Court below has rightly dismissed the Application taking into consideration the conduct of the Petitioner that even though the Eviction Petition was filed in 2006, the Petitioner has dragged this matter for nearly 13 years and in the absence of any bona fide explanation, the Court below rightly dismissed the Application. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions: