( 1 ) THE revision in C R P. No. 2622 of 1980 is directed against the order passed in LA. No. 2414 of 1979 in R. A. No. 217 of 1977,

( 2 ) THE landlord-respondent herein filed R. C. No. 77/73 for evicting the tenant who is the petitioner herein on the ground of wilful default. When the R. A. No. 217/77 was called for hearing on 28-9-1979, neither the appellant nor her counsel was present. Hence the appeal was dismissed. Against that order, LA. No. 2414/79 was filed on the same day by the Advocate with a request for setting aside the order passed in R. A. No. 217/77. But the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, dismissed the same. Hence the tenant preferred this revision. She also filed another revision c R. P. No. 2621/1980 against the order dismissing the appeal R A. No. 217/77 with abundant caution.

( 3 ) SRI Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the counsel who was engaged in R. A. No. 217/77 filed affidavit along with i. A. No. 2414/79 and in that affidavit he explained that he attended the Court to proceed with R. A. No. 217/77 and as he noticed that the Court would take some time to call his appeal, he went to another Court in connection with some other case, and by the time he came to the Court to proceed with R. A. No. 217/77, he came to know that it was dismissed for default; and hence, he immediately filed LA. No. 2414/79 along with his affidavit and he therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed in LA, No, 2414/79,

( 4 ) SRI Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the lower Court has given cogent reasons as to why I. A. No. 2414/79 should be dismissed, and the reasons given by the learned Chief judge are in accordance with law, and hence, the impugned order is proper and has not suffered from any jurisdictional error or material irregularity.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that when R. A. No. 217/77 was called by the learned Chief Judge, neither the counsel nor the appellant was present. As there was no representation, the learned Chief Judge dismissed it for default. Then I. A. No. 2414/79 was filed under Rule 11 (3) of the Rent Control rules- Rule 11 (3) reads as follows: "where an order is passed ex parte against a tenant or a landlord or an order of dismissal for default is passed by the appellate authority, the party affected may, within thirty days from the date of the pronouncement of the order in open court, apply to the appellate authority by whom the ex parte order or the order of dismissal was passed, for an order to set it aside, and if he satisfies the appellate authority that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing or that such default was occasioned due to circumstances beyond his control, the appellate authority shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order or order of dismissal passed, as the case may be, upon such terms as to costs, payment in court or otherwise, as the appellate authority thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the appeal. " these provisions thus make it clear that the appellate authority is given power to set aside the order of dismissal for default if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called for hearing or that such default was occasioned due to circumstances beyond his control, upon such terms as to costs payment in court or otherwise as the appellate authority thinks fit.

( 6 ) THE learned Chief Judge did not advert to the affidavit filed by the counsel appearing for the appellant. The affidavit of the counsel explains the circumstances under which he (the counsel) was not able to attend the Court at the time when the matter was called. The learned Chief judge did not say that the affidavit filed by the counsel need not be taken into consideration, since Rule 11 (3) postulates that