DEVARAJAN Vs. LINGAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE tenants are the petitioners. THE respondent- landlord filed eviction petitions in R. C. O. P. Nos. 21 of 1994, 15 of 1994 and 18 of 1994 respectively before the Rent Controller, Chengalpattu for evicting the petitioner under Sec. l4 (l) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act. THE petitioners have received the summons in the R. C. O. Ps. and they engaged counsel and filed a memo to the effect that the petitions may be allowed without costs by granting six months time to the petitioners for vacating the premises. On the basis of the memo, the Rent Controller has passed order of eviction on 9. 1. 1995. After the six months period lapsed, the respondent has taken out E. P. , proceedings to recover possession. At this stage, the petitioners have filed the applications LA. Nos. 644,642 and 646 of 1995 respectively for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the order in R. C. O. Ps.

(2.) THE petitioners'averment in the affidavit filed in support of the petitions for condoning the delay is that after receipt of the notice in the R. C. O. P. proceedings, the respondent- landlord approached them for settlement and in order to enter into the settlement, for withdrawing the R. C. O. Ps the respondent requested the petitioners to sign the vakalat and the blank papers. Believing the words of the respondent, the petitioners handed over the blank papers signed by them along with vakalat and the respondent had played a fraud by engaging the counsel of his choice and made use of the blank papers signed by them for the purpose of memo and obtained order of eviction. THE petitioners had never consented for such order. Only on receipt of the notice in the E. P. , they come to know about the eviction order and hence they filed the appeal with the petitions for condonation of the delay. THE lower appellate court has dismissed the petitions, against which the present revisions have been filed.