HAJ MOHAMED Vs. ASMA UMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the tenant under the respondent. THE respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 10 of 1994 on the file of the Rent Controller, Karaikkal to evict the petitioner on the ground of wilful default stating that the petitioner was in arrears from July, 1989. This was opposed by the petitioner by filing counter. However, the Rent Controller had allowed the R.C.O.P. by his order dated 2.2.1995. THE petitioner preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 2 of 1996 which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Pondicherry at Karaikkal by his order dated 21.10.1996. As against this the present revision has been filed.

(2.) MR. Yamunan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the evidence of P.W. 1 was recorded the case was adjourned twice for the respondent's evidence. But since the counsel was not free, third time also adjournment was sought for. The Rent Controller refused to grant adjournment and the Rent Controller proceeded to decide the matter on merits on the basis of the averments in the counter and certain answers given by the petitioner before the Court. Since the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to put forth his case the orders of the Courts below are liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have carefully considered the contentions of both the counsel. The Rent Controller has observed in his order as follows: