V.RATNAM
M. S. Hameed – Appellant
Versus
Kanniammal – Respondent
V. Ratnam, J.
1. The tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1973 is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition which is directed against the order dismissing his application in I.A. No. 3 of 1979 praying for the setting aside of an ex parte order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of costs as directed. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (as amended by Act XXIII of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 16th December, 1978, an ex parte order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3 of 1979 in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1973 to set aside--the ex parte order of eviction and on 8th July, 1980, the Rent Controller passed a conditional order setting aside the ex parte order of eviction directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 25 as costs to the landlord respondent on or before 16th July, 1980. However, the petitioner did not pay the costs within the time granted by the Rent Controller with the result I. A. No. 3 of 1979 was dismissed on 17th July, 1980, as the costs had not been paid. It is the correctness of the order that is chal
1. Arunachalam v. Lt. Col. Srinivasan (1968) 1 M.L.J. 435
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.