The appellant-landlord is before us questioning
the common impugned order dated 18.09.2009 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Madras, pursuant to
which the application filed by the respondent-tenants
seeking condonation of delay of 175 days in questioning
the ex-parte decree dated 27.02.2004 was allowed. In
consequence thereof, ex-parte decree was set aside.
The operative part of the order passed by the High
Court under the order impugned dated 18.09.2009 is
In the result, the Revision Petitions are
allowed and the impugned orders passed by the
Courts below are hereby set aside. The second
petitioner is directed to pay a cost of Rs.5000/-
to the respondent. The Rent Controller is directed
to take RCOP 2270 and 2271 of 1994 on its file and
dispose of the same on merits after giving
opportunity to both sides for adducing necessary
evidence. No costs.”
The brief facts manifest from the record are that
the appellant-landlord initiated the rent control
proceedings before the Rent Controller in RCOP Nos.
2270-2271/1994 impleading the present respondents as
tenants. The Eviction Petition was filed primarily on
three grounds; (i) willful default, (ii) unauthorized
subletting and (iii) creating additional accommodation.
Pending proceedings, applications were filed by the
appellant-landlord to direct the tenants to deposit the
arrears of rent. However, on 10.02.2004, the Rent
Controller passed an ex-parte order directing the
tenants to deposit the arrears of rent. Subsequently,
since the conditional order dated 10.02.2004 was not
complied with by the respondents-tenants as alleged,
the Rent Controller by an order dated 27.02.2004
allowed the Eviction Petition by passing an ex-parte
decree.
It has been alleged by the respondents in their
applications filed for setting aside ex-parte decree
that they came across about the ex-parte decree of
eviction dated 27.02.2004 at the stage when the Court
Amin came to take possession of their shops. Affecting
the delivery of possession, immediately application was
filed by the respondents for setting aside ex-parte
decree of eviction dated 27.02.2004 with an application
seeking condonation of delay of 175 days.
The Rent Controller dismissed their application
seeking condonation of delay by an order dated
07.02.2005, which finally travelled to the High Court
and the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction after
taking into consideration the material on record,
arrived to the conclusion that the delay of 175 days
was bona fide and has been satisfactorily explained and
allowed the application seeking condonation of delay of
175 days. In sequel thereof, the ex-parte decree was
set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Rent
Controller to hear the parties on merits.
After we have heard learned Counsel for the
parties, we do not find any error being committed by
the High Court in passing of the impugned order which
may call for our interference.
Consequently, the Appeals fail and are dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.