THANGAMANI Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful tenant is the revision petitioner before this Court and she has filed the revision aggrieved against the order of dismissal dated 30-11- 1998 in M.P. No. 43 of 1998 in R.C.A. No. 1513 of 1996 on the file of VII Small Causes Court, Madras.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows : The respondent/landlord filed petitions under Section 10(3)(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Act as R.C.O.P. No. 1256 of 1995 on the ground of wilful default and R.C.O.P. No. 1257 of 1995 on the ground of own occupation. The learned Rent Controller dismissed both application's on merits on 10.10.1996. The Court Officer came to the residence of the petitioner and informed on 12.12.1997 that E.P. No. 506 of 1997 for execution of the eviction order in the rent control petition had been filed. She came to know that E.P. No. 506 of 1997 was posted for appearance on 15.12.1997 and on enquiry through counsel, she came to know that the respondent preferred an appeal and the appeal was allowed ex parte. She never received any notice and unless the ex parte order is set aside, she would be put to much loss and hardship. She did not receive any notice in the appeal. Hence, she filed M.P. No. 43 of 1998 to set aside the ex parte order passed in R.C.A. No. 1513 of 1996, dated 11,9.1997.

(3.) The respondent filed counter stating that notice was sent to the same address given in the rent control petition. No petition to condone the delay has been filed by the petitioner. Now, it is not open to the petitioner to state that because of the wrong address, notice was not served. To the same address only, the notice in executioin petition was also sent and it has been duly served. The appeal was also allowed on merit and the petitioner cannot now seek to set aside the same and the remedy is . only by way of revision. There is no merit and the petition lacks in bona fide.