JAYAVERCHAND Vs. BALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD in R.C.O.P.No.2857 of 1990, on the file of XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER herein filed R.C.O.P.No.2857 of 1990 against the respondent for eviction. An ex parte order was passed on 3.5.1991. The matter came up for first hearing on 20.12.1990. Since service could not be completed, it was adjourned, and the Rent Controller ordered fresh notice. Rent Controller also ordered substituted service by publication, returnable by 30.4.1991 On 30.4.1991, respondent was called. Since he was absent, he was set ex parte, and the matter was posted to 3.5.1991 for ex parte evidence. On 3.5.1991, evidence was taken and an order of eviction was passed.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the purchaser filed E.P.No.385 of 1996. After getting notice of the same, a further application was filed by respondent herein as M.P.No.742 of 1996 in M.P.No.110 of 1992, to restore the earlier application which had already been dismissed for default. It is alleged in that petition by the respondent that after the ex parte order of eviction, and after he filed M.P.No.110 of 1992, he met the petitioner herein who assured him that he will not be dispossessed and his intention is only to sell the property. The respondent further averred that he believed the words of the petitioner and therefore, did not take steps to have the notice served on the petitioner. Only when the purchaser initiated action, he knew that he has been de-frauded and, therefore, wanted the delay of 1,650 days to be condoned and the miscellaneous petition re-stored to file.