CAPTAIN S DINAKAR Vs. MS PARVATHI SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the tenant under the respondent. THE respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.1659 of 2006 on the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai for eviction and the same was allowed on 29.1.2008 granting two months time for vacating the premises. THE petitioner carried the matter in appeal in R.C.A.No,391 of 2008 on the file of VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and the appeal suffered dismissal on 29.4.2009.

(2.) THEREAFTER, for the purpose of filing the appeal, the petitioner filed copy application on 8.6.2009. The certified copies of the appellate Court's order and decree were made ready on 24.6.2009. He filed the Civil Revision Petition on 27.7.2009. From the date of filing of the copy application till the date of filing of the revision before Court, there is a time gap of seventy two (72) days. Thirty (30) days has been prescribed in the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act for preferring appeal under Section 25(1) of the Act. Section 25(2) allows further period of one month enabling the aggrieved party in the Rent control appeal to prefer revision before the High Court. But in this case, even after exhausting the period under Section 25(2) of the Act, there remains 12 days of delay.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court Irene v. V.S. Venkataraman 2002 (1) CTC 631 in which THEir Lordships were pleased to hold that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, the Court may call for the record of the appellate authority and satisfy itself as to the legality of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein.