S BALAKRISHNAN Vs. A RATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition preferred under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India questions the correctness of the order of the Rent controller (District Munsif) Thiruthuraipoondi dismissing an application filed by the petitioner herein in E. A. No. 123 of 1985 in'. P. No. 46 of 1985 in r. C. O. P. No. 11 of 1984, under S. 18 (l) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and R. 12 of the rules framed under the Act.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner, an ex parte order of eviction had been passed against him on 1. 2. 1985 and an application to set aside that order had been fded on 4. 2. 1985 under R. 12 (3) of the Rules in I a. No. 4 of 1985. Notice of that application was taken by the respondent herein and time for filing a counter was requested on 12. 2. 1985 and subsequently, time was extended for filing counter till 14. 6. 1985. Meanwhile, on 24. 4. 1985, the respondent is stated to have filed E. P. No. 46 of 1985 for executing the order of eviction obtained in R. C. O. P. No. ll of 1984, and pursuant to the order for delivery, taken delivery on 25. 4. 1985, resulting in the dispossession of the petitioner. Thereupon on 2. 5. 1985, the petitioner fded E A. No. 123 of 1985 in e. P. No. 46 of 1985 praying for re-delivery i. e. ,restitution to him of the property from which he was dispossessed. The Rent Controller dismissed this application holding that the order of eviction passed against the petitioner cannot be considered to be an ex parte order and,therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of restitution. It is the correctness of this order that is questioned by the petitioner.