Courts have inherent powers in respect of procedural matters.

1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India by the tenant in RCOP 141 of 1993 on the file of Rent Controller/District Munsif, Poonamalee. An order of eviction was passed and against the same petitioner filed RCA 38 of 1995 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamalee.

2. The appeal was posted for hearing on 16. 1997 and the same was adjourned at the request of petitioner. The advocate Clerk mistook the posting as 17. 1997 even though it was posted on 30.6.1997. So when the matter was enquired on 17. 1997, petitioner came to know that on 30.6.1997 itself appeal was dismissed for default since there was no representation. Petitioner moved an application to restore the same under Rule 16(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, though the same is wrongly stated as Rule 12(3) and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The application was filed in time i.e., on 27. 1997.

3. The case was thereafter posted to 16. 1998 on which date case was again adjourned due to advocates boycott, even though petitioner was called absent. The case was again posted on 26. 1998. On 26. 1998, petitioner was again called and he was absent. There was no representation by the counsel and hence the petition was rejected.

4. To restore that application which was dismissed for default, petitioner again filed an application which was refused to be numbered by the lower court. It was returned asking petitioner to state the provision of law and how the petition is maintainable. It was represented with the statement that under Rule 12(3) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the application is maintainable. Even then the lower court did not entertain the application, which necessitated filing of this revision.

5. I ordered notice of motion and respondent also entered appearance. The only question that requires consideration is whether the application which was dismissed for default could be again restored by another application?

6. The representation that application is maintainable under Rule 12(3) of the Act is not correct. That applies to the rent control application which is dismissed for default or where ex parte order is passed and restoration application to set aside the order of eviction by the Rent Controller or restoring an application which was dismissed for default is alone contemplated under Rule 12(3). Rule 16(3) applies to appeals which are dismissed for default or decided exparte. But there is no provision to restore an application which is dismissed for default whether filed under Rule 12(3) or Rule 16(3). In such circumstances, the question to be considered is whether the application could

be entertained by Rent Controller, or appellate authority who is a creature of statute.

7. In B.S.C. Enterprises v. Ashok Kumar Lunia , 1995 (II) C.T.C. 281, Justice Rengasamy held thus:

“... When the adjudication before the Rent Controller relates to the rights of the parties, which are in civil nature, and the order of Rent Controller also is an executable order, certainly the view of this court that the Rent Controller is a Court has to be accepted for all purposes.“

Learned Judge in para 4 of the same Judgment further held thus,

“When once the Rent Controller is considered to be a court, the court must have the way for doing substantial justice to the parties before it. The court cannot be so rigid closing its eyes to the facts when placed before it for the purpose of the proper adjudication...”

In the same paragraph, learned Judge also held thus,

“... When it is conceded that the Rent Controller has the inherent powers to order for amendment with regard to the mistakes found in the petition, I feel that the Court is more powerful with its inherent powers to rectify the mistakes namely the omission to mention certain vital aspects which are incidental to the relief sought for in the petition”

8. The above decision was followed by Justice Raju (as he then was) in the d