J. NATARAJAN Vs. M.I. SYED IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision petitioner herein is the respondent/tenant and the respondent in his Civil Revision petition is the petitioner/landlord before the Courts below.

(2.) The Revision petitioner/Tenant herein filed the above Civil Revision petition as against the judgment and decree dated 20.7.1998 in R.C.A. No 66/97 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai confirming the fair and decretal order dated 10.1.1997 and made in M.P. No. 666/96 in R.C.O.P. No. 3268/97 passed by the learned IX Assistant Judge Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant that the lower Court Judge in R.C.A. No. 66/97 ought to have allowed the appeal, and the delay ought to have been condoned since the revision petitioner had given sufficient reason for condonation of delay in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal of M.P. No. 970/90 (sic) and the Courts below failed to consider the material facts as to whether the revision petitioner was informed by this erstwhile counsel that the R.C.O.P. had been pending, and the Courts below failed to consider the averment made regarding the collusion between the petitioner 's erstwhile counsel and the respondent landlord herein but had erroneously dismissed the application in M.P.No. 666 of 1996 and so the revision petition must be admitted.