D. AMUDHAVALLI Vs. N. ARUNACHALA NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The landlord has filed this civil revision petition.

(2.) The landlord filed a petition against the respondent for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. After filing the petition, the respondent absented himself for several hearings. There was no representation at all on his behalf for about 12 hearings. Hence an ex parte eviction order was passed on 22-1-1996. The respondent filed M.P.No. 472 of 1996 for condoning the delay of 133 days. The learned Rent Controller has allowed the said petition. As against the said order, the landlord has preferred the above Civil Revision Petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, without the remedy of appeal against the said order.

(3.) Notice of motion was ordered in the revision for service of notice to -the respondent. The respondent was served with the notice through Court on 2-6-1997. As there was no appearance by the respondent, the petitioner took adjournments and sent a notice privately on 5-10-1997. On 5-10-1997, the petitioner sent notice to the lower Court advocate also. The private notices have been received by the respondent on 9-10-1997. Similarly on 8-10-1997 the lower Court advocate has also received the notice. On 12-10-1997, when the case was called, Mr. S. K. Sundaram, advocate represented that he has already filed vakalath. Thereafter this Court has directed the registry to verify and print the name of the counsel for the respondent. When the matter came on 24-10-1997 Mr. S. K. Sundaram appeared and requested for adjournment. Hence, the case was adjourned to 5-11-1997. On 5-11-1997, when the matter came up Mr. S. K. Sundaram, did not appear and there was no representation. As there was no representation in the morning, the case was directed to be called at 2.15 P.M. At 2.15 P.M. also there was no representation. Hence, the matter was posted to 10-11-1997.