MARIYAMMAL Vs. SATHU SARAVANAN TRUSTEE VELLAICHAMY MADALAYAM MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the petitioner herein in a proceeding under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is seen from the certified copy of the petition and order produced by the petitioner that though notice was served on the petitioner herein, even before 6.2.1989, he was repeatedly taking time for filing his statement of objection. On 19.9.1989 time was granted finally till 5.12.1989. The court recorded that, inspite of time having been given for filing statement of objection such statement was not filed. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner herein and he was called absent and set ex parte. The matter was posted to 23.12.1989 for evidence. On that day, learned Rent Controller examined the landlord as P.W.1 and passed the following order:

(2.) WHEN the landlord filed E.P.No.538 of 1991 for executing the order, petitioner herein filed E.A.No.1147 of 1991 under Sec.47 read with Sec.151, C.P.C. for a declaration that the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P.No.493 of 1988 is illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction and it cannot be executed. The executing court, after hearing both parties, passed an order dismissing the said application. It is that order which is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) THE next contention is that the order of the Rent Controller for eviction is a nullity. It is submitted that the Rent Controller has not expressed in the order his satisfaction that the default is wilful, after considering the evidence on record. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Balasubrahmanyan, J., in S.S.Khader Mohammed Rowther and Company v. Syed Azurdeen, 91 L.W.122. The order passed in that case is as follows: