Judgment :-

R.M. Lodha, J.

Leave granted.

2. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal by special leave is: whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the miscellaneous petition filed by the applicant for extension of time in depositing the arrears of rent?

3. Bereft of unnecessary details, suffice it to say that in the petition filed by the respondent (landlord) under section 10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act, 1960 (for short , `Act 1960) seeking eviction of the appellant (tenant) on the ground of wilful default by not paying rent from March 1, 1997 till June 30, 2001 at the rate of Rs.400/- per, an ex-parte order of eviction against the appellant was passed by the Rent Controller, Salem on April 7, 2004.

4. The tenant filed a petition before the Rent Controller, Salem, on April 19, 2004, for setting aside the ex- parte order of eviction. He stated in the petition that the original rent control petition was posted on April 7, 2004 for cross-examination of the landlord but as he (tenant) was unwell and could not appear before the court and instruct his counsel for cross-examination, an ex-parte order came to be passed against him. He stated that his non-appearance was not wanton.

5. The landlord contested the petition for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction on diverse grounds. Inter-alia, he stated that reasons set forth in the affidavit were false and whole intention of the tenant is to protract the proceedings.

6. The Rent Controller heard the parties and in his order dated July 5, 2004 referred to the proceedings to indicate that earlier also for want of appearance an ex-parte order of eviction was passed which was set aside on the application made by the tenant. The

Rent Controller also noticed the various dates on which the tenant sought adjournment. This is what the Rent Controller observed:

"..........The perusal of the Courts notes paper reveals that the P.W.1 was examined on 24.9.2003 in chief. Then the said Rent Control Original Petition was adjourned for cross of P.W.1 on 30.9.2003, 6.10.2003, 9.10.2003 and on 14.10.2003. For all these hearings the petitioner who is the respondent in the main R.C.O.P. had not chosen to cross examine the P.W.1 Finally on 14.10.2003 the petitioners counsel had endorsed no instruction and hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the present petitioner in the main R.C.O.P. Then, later on the present applicant had filed an application of similar kind vide I.A.No.253/2003 and got it allowed. So on having been allowed I.A.No.253/2003, this Court had posted the main Rent Control Original Petition for cross of P.W.1 on 1.3.2004. Again from 1.3.2004, the case was posted to 8.3.2004 and then to 18.3.2004 for cross of P.W.1. From 18.3.2004 the case was adjourned to 25.3.2004. From 25.3.2004 again the case adjourned to 2.4.2004 for cross of P.W.1 as no further adjournment. Again on 2.4.2004 this Court in the interest of justice had adjourned the cross of P.W.1 to 7.4.2004 as no further adjournment, for the second time. On 7.4.2004 the present petitioner had not chosen to appear before the Court........."

7. The Rent Controller although found that petition was without any substance, but in the interest of justice allowed the petition on the tenants depositing arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.34,400/- pertaining to the period March 1997 to May 31, 2004 within 15 days from the date of the order.

8. The tenant challenged the order dated July 5, 2004 in appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Salem. The Rent Control Appellate Authority heard the parties and vide its order dated February 19, 2007 dismissed the appeal observing thus:

"........Further till date, the appellant has not deposited the arrears of rent of Rs.34,400/- as ordered by the Rent Controller. The non compliance of the order of the Rent Controller would show the attitude of the appellant herein. Therefore, the order of the Rent Controller is sustainable