N. ARUNACHALAM Vs. LT. COLONEL V. SRINIVASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Civil Revision case two questions have been argued: - (i) Whether the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable at all in the High Court, and (2) Whether the order does satisfy the requirements of Rule 18(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1961. The landlord filed an application under Section 14 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The application was posted for hearing on 13th June, 1966. As the landlord was absent, it was dismissed. On an affidavit sworn to by the Advocate for the landlord filed in support of an application to restore the original Rent Control Petition and after hearing the parties, the Rent Controller set aside the ek parte order.

(2.) MR . G.N. Chari, learned Counsel for the petitioner tenant before me contends that the order suffers by two infirmities, namely, that the Rent Controller did not give any finding whether sufficient cause has been shown by the landlord for restoration of the application dismissed for default; and (2) the procedure adopted by the landlord in setting up his Advocate to file the affidavit in support of the application Was not warranted under Rule 18(3).

(3.) THE second contention of Mr. G.N. Chari is well founded. The order of the Rent Controller is non -speaking. It does not even state whether a sufficient cause has been shown by the landlord who is the aggrieved party; nor does it refer to the fact that the Controller was satisfied with the absence of the landlord. I have therefore no hesitation in setting aside this order.