P P MUTHU Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. S. K. Sundaram, Advocate was appearing for the petitioner. At his instance, the matter was adjourned on several occasions. Ultimately, he reported to the court that he had returned the papers to the party with his consent for engaging another counsel. We directed the matter to be posted on 22. 2. 1995 with the name of the party in the cause list. On that day, MR. V. S. Subramaniam, Advocate appeared before us and stated that he was being instructed by the party to appear and if the vakalat is given to him he would appear and argue the matter. At his instance, the matter was adjourned to this date viz. , on 27. 12. 1995. Today, MR. V. S. Subramaniam, learned counsel states, that the party has not furnished him with the relevant records, nor has he given vakalat to appear in this matter. Hence, he has prayed for being excused for his absence in this case.

(2.) ANOTHER Advocate attempted to ask for an adjournment. We have refused to grant it in view of the repeated adjournments already granted in this case. The party who is in court has made a representation that the matter should be adjourned further in order to enable him to make arrangements for engaging an Advocate. In the circumstances set out, we are not inclined to grant any further time in the matter.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, the petitioner had also filed this writ petition on 28. 12. 1994 challenging the constitutional validity of sec. l1 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. According to the petitioner, the said section is unconstitutional as it is opposed to the very object of the Act and inconsistent with proviso to sec. l0 (2) (i) of the Act.