Judgment : Tenant in R.C.O.P.No.252 of 1992 on the file of Rent Controller XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras is the revision petitioner. 2. Eviction petition was filed by Mrs.Mane Devadasan seeking eviction of tenant from scheduled premises, on the ground that the building required for their occupation. Tenant received notice of eviction petition and also engaged counsel. Since no counter statement was filed in spite of various adjournment, Landladys evidence was taken and on 1.10.1992, an order of eviction was passed. After getting order of eviction, landlady died on 26.8.1993. Respondent herein who is the only legal heir of landlady wanted to execute that order. But she was not party to the proceedings and unless she is impleaded, she cannot file execution petition. Therefore, along with execution petition, she filed M.P.No.700 of 1993 to get herself impleaded in the execution petition. Notice was ordered by executing court and the same was received by revision petitioner in December, 1993. After receipt of notice, revision petitioner filed M.P.No.152 of 1994 against deceased landlady to set aside the ex parte order. Rent Controller ordered notice on the same. Since no notice was taken, M.P.No.152 of 1994 was dismissed for default on 24.3.1994. 3. In M.P.No.700 of 1993 filed by landlady to get herself impleaded, petitioner took various adjournments and finally on 22.7.1992, filed his counter opposing impleadment. For enquiry also petitioner obtained various adjournments and the matter was argued on 7.9.1994 i.e., after two years from the date of filing counter. Impleading application was allowed on 22.9.1994 and respondent herein filed execution petition to get possession of building on the basis of ex parte order. 4. Whileso, petitioner herein filed M.P.No.93 of 1995 to restore M.P.No.152 of 1994. Even in that application petitioner did not implead respondent and that application was also filed against dead person. In spite of knowledge that petition was filed against dead person, respondent herein filed memo stating that M.P.No.93 of 1995 is filed against dead person and there is no valid proceeding before court. When that memo was filed, petitioner herein withdraw that application. 5. Thereafter, petitioner filed M.P.Nos.203 and 204 of 1995 one to set aside ex parte order and the other to condone delay in filing application to set aside ex parte order. According to petitioner the delay in only 307 days. When that memo was filed, petitioner herein withdraw that application. 5. Thereafter, petitioner filed M.P.Nos.203 and 204 of 1995 one to set aside ex parte order and the other to condone delay in filing application to set aside ex parte order. According to petitioner the delay in only 307 days. When it was found that number of days stated in the petition was not correct, petitioner again filed M.P.No.254 of 1995 stating that the delay is 346 days and wanted the same to be condoned. Respondent herein through her power of attorney seriously objected to the petition and Rent Controller by order dated 28.4.1998 allowed it. Rent Controller was moved away by the statement in the affidavit that the case bundle was misplaced by counsel and therefore petitioner is entitled to have the delay condoned. 6. Against that order, respondent herein filed R.C.A.No.525 of 1995 on the file of appellate Authority. Appellate authority reconsidered the entire evidence and held that no indulgence is to be shown to the tenant and the order of rent controller is against evidence. His application to condone delay was dismissed. The same is challenged in this revision petition under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act. 7. In the grounds for revision it is said that the court below should have taken liberal view in condoning delay and once discretion has been exercised by the trial court, appellate authority should not have interfered with the sound discretion. 8. Since caveat was entered, I heard the revision petition at the admission stage itself. Both parties produced documents in typed set of papers on which they rely on. 9. Rent Controller held that petitioner is entitled to have the delay contoned since counsel has misplaced the case bundle and therefore could not take note of the date of posting. The mistake or omission by the counsel should not affect the rights of petitioner was the main reason for condoning delay by the Rent Controller. It is further found that it is only proper that an opportunity should be given to tenant to substantiate his case. 10. InM.P.No.203 of 1995 there is no averment that case bundle was misplaced by counsel. It is further found that it is only proper that an opportunity should be given to tenant to substantiate his case. 10. InM.P.No.203 of 1995 there is no averment that case bundle was misplaced by counsel. In M.P.No.254 of 1995 in para.4 of the affidavit it is stated thus: “I further submit that the hand bundle of my counsel was misplaced in the office of my counsel and by oversight I had not followed up the said application filed by me.” It is this statement in the affidavit was taken into consideration by Rent Controller to hold that the delay is liable to be condoned. Except the statement in the affidavit, which was seriously disputed in the counter-affidavit, no evidence was let in. When there is no averment in the earlier petition, the statement in subsequent affidavit will have to be taken cautiously. In the counter-statement filed by landlord, the details of each and every posting and how the counsel also represented before court are narrated. It is clear from those averments that counsel misplaced the case bundle cannot be true or at any rate it should not be taken seriously especially when there is no evidence. In the counter statement it is further said that counsel for petitioner was taking active part on various proceedings and present application is filed only to protract the proceedings. 11. The fact that landlady is dead even in the year 1993 was brought to the notice of the tenant when M.P.No.700 of 1993 is filed. Long after filing of that application tenant moved an application to set aside the ex parte order in M.P.No.152 of 1994. He moved the application against dead person fully knowing that she is dead on that date. The same is also repeated in M.P.No.93 of 1995 and the same was withdrawn when a memo was filed stating that respondent therein is dead. For the impleading application M.P.No.700 of 1993, petitioner took various adjournments and after objection was filed, he took two years to argue the matter. From this circumstance it is clear that the application is intended only to protract litigation and with mala fide intention. Appellate authority has considered the entire evidence and also all materials placed before it and come to the conclusion that the delay is not liable to be excused. 12. From this circumstance it is clear that the application is intended only to protract litigation and with mala fide intention. Appellate authority has considered the entire evidence and also all materials placed before it and come to the conclusion that the delay is not liable to be excused. 12. While sitting in revision under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, when it is found that appellate authority has not committed any illegality, impropriety or irregularity, this Court is not expected to set aside the same if another view is possible. Even if different view is possible, that cannot be a ground for setting aside the order of appellate authority. 13. In the result, the revision petition is without any merit and consequently the same is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P.No.19223 of 1999 is also dismissed.