ORDER: Aggrieved by the order dated 23.1.2001, made in I.A.No.10 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.No.19 of 1996 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, refusing to condone a total inordinate delay of 705 days in representing an application to set aside the ex parte order in R.C.O.P.No.19 of 1996, dated 28.8.1997 on the ground that the counsel had misplaced the bundle, claiming it as a genuine professional preoccupation in the office of the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred the above civil revision petition

2. No doubt, an ex parte eviction order was passed on 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P.No.19 of 1996 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, against the petitioner- tenant, evicting him, from the premises at door No.137, Jawaharlal Nehru Street, Pondicherry, for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction and for personal occupation.

3. Even though the petitioner- tenant filed I.A.No.14 of 1997 before the learned Rent Controller to set aside the ex parte order dated 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1996, with a delay of 30 days, viz., 27.9.1997 to 27.10.1997, the same was returned for certain compliance, granting time till 4.12.1997, but the papers were represented only on 25.2.1998, with a delay of 83 days, viz., from 5.12.1997 to 27.2.1998. Thereafter the papers were again returned on 3.3.1998 for compliance on giving two weeks time to represent the same, viz., till 17.3.1998. In the meanwhile, the respondent landlord filed E.P.No.37 of 1999 to execute the order dated 28.8.1997 made in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1996. Only on receipt of notice in the said E.P., the petitioner- tenant represented the papers, after a delay of 595 days viz., from 17.3.1998 till 1.11.1999. Even though the papers were again returned on 18.11.1999 giving time till 10.12.1999, the same were represented only on 5.1.2000, with a delay of 27 days.

4. Hence, the petitioner- tenant has preferred I.A.No.13 of 2000 to condone the delay of 30 days in filing I.A.No.14 of 1997 in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1996, I.A.No.10 of 2000 to condone the delay of 83 days in representation viz., from 5.12.1997 to 25.2.1998. I.A.No.11 of 2000 to condone the delay of 595 days in representation viz., from 17.3.1998 to 1.11.1999 and I.A.No.12 of 2000 to condone the delay of 27 days in representation viz., from 11.12.1999 to 5.1.2000.

5. In the above applications, only reason stated by the petitioner- tenant to condone the said delay is that hand bundles with returned applications were misplaced and lost.

6. The reason for the said delay was denied by the respondent landlord in the respective counter, by stating that the said reason had no sufficient cause to condone the delay and it was made deliberately to protract the proceedings in executing the order dated 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1996.

7. The learned Rent Controller by orders even dated 23.1.2001 dismissed I.A.Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2000, against which the petitioner has preferred R.C.A. Nos.12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of 2001 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, who, by common order dated 12.10.2001 dismissed the same, confirming the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 23.1.2001 in I.A.Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2000. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

8. In the above revision, we are not concerned with merits and demerits of the above order of eviction dated 28.8.1997, but concerned only whether the revision petitioner- tenant had offered sufficient cause and bona fide reason for condoning the delay, viz., 30 days from 27.9.1997 to 27.10.1997, 83 days from 5.12.1997 to 25.2.1998, 595 days from 17.3.1998 to 1.11.1999 and 27 days from 11.12.1999 to 5.1.2000.

9. The learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry, by his order dated 23.1.2001, observing that the reason offered by the petitioner to condone the delay of 30 days in filing I.A.No.14 of 2000, to set aside the ex parte order dated 28.8.1997 in R.C.O.P. No.19 of 1996 as well as to condone the delay of 83 days, viz., f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document