JALEELKHAN Vs. M KAMALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference has been made for adjudication by a Division Bench on a vital point as to whether a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code be converted into a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) The factual matrix germane for brevity and better understanding of the matter and for effective adjudication of the same may be set forth hereunder thus: The landlord-petitioner filed R.C. No. 209 of 1998 seeking eviction of the tenant from the demised premises on the premise that the tenant committed wilful default in paying the rents. That was resisted by the tenant denying the title of the landlord and setting up the title in himself. While the landlord-petitioner claimed that she purchased the demised premises along with another property under a registered sale deed from her vendor, who in turn said to have purchased the same in her name; the plea of the respondent-tenant was that the demised premises was gifted to him by the husband of the vendor of the landlord-petitioner. During the course of enquiry in the eviction petition, the vendor of the landlord- petitioner was examined as P.W.1, in proof of title of the landlord-petitioner over the demised premises. The chief-examination was done on 23-04-1999 and the matter was adjourned to 28-04-1999 for cross- examination on the side of the tenant- respondent. Thereafter, the matter underwent four adjournments including a couple of adjournments on payment of costs of Rs. 25.00. When the matter stood adjourned to 09-06-1999 for payment of costs of Rs. 25.00 for the second time and for proceeding with the cross-examination of P.W.1, neither the tenant nor his Counsel was present. The learned Rent Controller, therefore, passed an order forfeiting the right of the tenant to cross-examine the witness.

(3.) On 21-06-1999 the tenant filed LA. No. 267 of 1999 seeking to set aside the order dated 09-06-1999 forfeiting the right of cross-examination. In that petition, inter alia, the tenant sought to explain the reason for his default on 09-06-1999 on the premise that the date of adjournment was recorded as 19-06-1999 by his Counsel instead of 09-06-1999. The explanation was not found favour with and in sequel thereto, the learned Rent Controller dismissed, as aforesaid, I.A.No. 267 of 1999.