RAJENDRAN Vs. SPORTS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed, against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.08.2015, made in E.P. No. 103 of 2013 in O.S. No. 131 of 2006, on the file of the Sub Judge. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 131 of 2006 and respondent in E.P. No. 103 of 2013. The respondent filed Suit in O.S. No. 131 of 2006 for a judgment and decree directing the petitioner to put the respondent in vacant possession of schedule property and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month till delivery of possession. An ex-parte decree was passed in the Suit on 09.10.2007. The petitioner came to know of the ex-parte decree only on 20.04.2012, when the respondent directed the petitioner to vacate on 20.04.2012 and hand over the possession and meet the police. The petitioner filed application to set aside the ex-parte decree, dated 09.10.2007, along with the application to condone the delay of 1628 days of delay in filing the petition, to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said petition was not numbered and according to the petitioner, the said application was misplaced and that he has filed application to reconstruct the said application and then it was numbered recently.

(2.) The respondent filed E.P. No. 103 of 2013 to evict the petitioner from suit properties and deliver vacant possession. The petitioner filed counter affidavit and contended that in view of application to condone delay and set aside ex-parte decree are pending and the petitioner is carrying on a Hotel Business and if evicted, he will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and prayed for dismissal of E.P. 103 of 2013. The petitioner also filed an application to stay the execution proceedings for a period of six months. The said application was returned for want of court fee stamps.

(3.) The learned Judge considering the facts and materials on record and the fact that the petitioner has not furnished the I.A. number for condoning the delay and contention of the respondent that rent was not paid, rejected the contention of the petitioner and allowed the E.P. No. 103 of 2013. Against that order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.