R. KAMARAJ Vs. L. RAJESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the order in I.A. No. 53 of 2018 in R.C.A. SR. No. 5378 of 2018 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram.

(2.) I.A. No. 53 of 2018 was preferred by the petitioner herein to condone the delay of 2 days in preferring the R.C.A before the Rent Control Appellate Authority against the decreetal order dtd. 18/7/2018 passed by the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Padmanabhapuram in I.A. No. 694 in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2017.

(3.) In the said petition, the respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter statement stating that R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2017 was filed by the respondents herein and the Rent Control Appeal is arising out of the order passed on 18/7/2018 in I.A. No. 694 of 2017 in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 2017 filed by the respondents 1 to 3 for depositing the entire arrears of rent. They further contended that in I.A. No. 694 of 2019 which was preferred by the respondents, the Rent Controller has passed a conditional order directing this petitioner and the 4th respondent herein to deposit the entire arrears of rent upto the date of deposit after deducting the advance amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 on or before 20/8/2018. This petitioner and the 4th respondent have not complied the said order passed by the Rent Controller in I.A. No. 694 of 2017. Instead of depositing the arrears of rent as directed by the learned Rent controller, this petitioner has filed a separate petition seeking for enlargement of time for 2 weeks to comply the said order. But again this petitioner wantonly failed to comply the said order and he has preferred the R.C.A belatedly with delay of 2 days. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that after getting enlargement of time to comply with order of the learned Rent Controller by filing a separate petition, this petitioner has no locus standi to file the R.C.A before this Forum. The filing of the R.C.A amounts to not only discarding the order of the Court below but also defrauding the lower Court and also abusing the process of this Court. The delay on the part of the petitioner is also very much denied by the respondents as false one.