Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1623 (MAD)

K. Venugopal & Others v. K. Arumugam

2007-06-06

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2007
Judgment :- A challenge is made to an order of the Rent Controller and I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore made in I.A.No.159 of 2005 made in RCOP.No.8 of 1999 seeking to condone the delay of 263 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte order of eviction passed by the Court below. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 3. A Rent Control petition was filed by the respondent/landlord on the ground of willful default and for demolition and re-construction. After filing the RCOP, the respondent/tenant appeared before the Court below and filed the counter. The matter was posted for enquiry on 19. 2004. Since he could not attend the Court on that date, he was set ex parte and eviction order was passed. Thereafter, an application to set aside the exparte order of eviction was filed by the revision petitioner/tenant along with the application to condone the delay of 263 days in I.A.No.159 of 2005. 4. The reasons adduced in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are that (i) the revision petitioner had gone to Hyderabad along with his daughter in connection with her higher education and hence he could not present at the time of enquiry. (ii) Since the advocates were boycotting, he could not contact his counsel. Hence, the delay has been caused. The lower Court was not satisfied with the reasons adduced by the petitioner. The reasons adduced by the petitioner is that he had gone to Hyderabad in connection with his daughters education is not acceptable, since the delay caused was 263 days. In the instant case, it is brought to the notice of the Court that he is carrying on Tyre business and further it is pertinent to point out that he was carrying on his business during the relevant point of time. Hence the reasons adduced by the petitioner on the face of it has to be rejected. The reasons adduced by the petitioner is nothing but are false. Hence the lower Court has correctly rejected and under such circumstances, no interference is called for by this Court. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, CMP.No.20641 of 2005 is also dismissed.