Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4418 (MAD)

J. Valsamma v. P. Kasthuri

2011-11-04

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order and Decretal Order dated 25.2.2011 passed in M.P.No.201 of 2010 in R.C.A.(SR)No.3118 of 2010 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes (Appellate Authority), Chennai. 2. Mr.P.B.Balaji, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent/caveator. By consent, the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. The respondent/landlady filed RCOP No.282 of 2006 before the Rent Control Court, for fixation of fair rent at the rate of Rs.46,692/-per month to the petition premises. The learned Rent Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.22,676/-per month. Challenging the same the tenant/revision petitioner preferred an appeal along with M.P.No.201 of 2010 to condone the delay of 360 days in filing the Rent Control Appeal. Learned Rent Control Appellate Authority rejected the plea of the revision petitioner/tenant to condone the delay of 360 days in preferring the appeal. Challenging the same, the revision petition is filed by the tenant. 4. The delay, according to the revision petitioner/tenant, was due to delay in filing copy application by the revision petitioners previous counsel. On verification of records, this statement appears to be bona fide and in view of the same, the application filed to condone the delay is also justified. The revision petitioner/tenant also filed certain medical records Exs.P-1 to P-3 for taking treatment for knee pain which includes a medical certificate etc. The Court below failed to consider the fact that the filing of the copy application is the role of the counsel and not of the party. Therefore, the bona fides of the revision petitioner/tenant cannot be doubted. Furthermore, medical records have also been produced. 5. The Rent Control Original Petition is field for fixation of fair rent. The tenancy is continuing. In such view of the matter, in order to provide substantial justice to the revision petitioner/tenant, who had already suffered an order before the learned Rent Controller, the order of the Court below declining to condone the delay appears to be not commensurate with the nature of the grievance expressed by the revision petitioner/tenant. The delay has been substantially explained. In such view of the matter, in order to provide substantial justice to the revision petitioner/tenant, who had already suffered an order before the learned Rent Controller, the order of the Court below declining to condone the delay appears to be not commensurate with the nature of the grievance expressed by the revision petitioner/tenant. The delay has been substantially explained. In a case of this nature, this Court is not inclined to take a very serious and stringent view as the revision petitioner/tenant has given proper reason for the delay and there appears to be no material to show lack of bona fide or intention to drag on the proceedings. 6. In the result, the delay of 360 days in filing the Rent Control Appeal is condoned. The order of the Court below passed in M.P.No.201 of 2010 is set aside. Consequently, M.P.No.201 of 2010 is allowed. The revision petitioner/tenant undertakes to cooperate for early disposal of the appeal. In view of the undertaking given by the revision petitioner/tenant and also taking note of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady, the Court below is directed to number the Rent Control Appeal and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.