1. The landlord was not present in Court when her eviction petition under Act 2/65 was taken up for trial, and the petition was dismissed for default. She applied for restoration and the Rent Control Court allowed the application, on being satisfied that there was sufficient cause to do so. The tenant appealed, but without success. His revision under S.20 fared the same fate. And that is how he has come to this Court, under S.115 CPC.

2. The question whether a Rent Control Court has power to restore a petition dismissed for default was considered by this Court in Asher v. Raru (1979 KLT. 260). The rival contentions were based on the provisions of S.23 of the Act. Clause (h) of S.23(1) confers on the Rent Control Court the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court in the matter of setting aside ex parte orders; and clause (k) ropes in the power of review also. Janaki Amma J. held that the power to restore was different from the power to set aside ex parte orders, and that clause (h) was not applicable. At the same time it was indicated that the power to review conferred by clause (k) could be used for restoring a petition dismissed for default.

3. Counsel for the revision