Production of medical certificate for proof of illness not significant.

The revision petition is filed by the trust, which is the landlord. The petition for eviction has been filed on the ground on wilful default in payment of rent. The matter was posted for trial to 112. 1993. The tenant did not appear, nor did his counsel appear in court. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction after recording the evidence of the landlord. The tenant filed I. A. No. 145 of 1994 for setting aside the said order.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the reason given by him for nonappearance on 112. 1993 is that he was suffering from acid peptic disease and taking treatment under a Doctor K.P. Kannappan from 112. 1993 to 112. 1993. It is further stated that he was bed-ridden and could not move about. Consequently, he could not appear in court or instruct his counsel. The application was filed on 1. 1994. The application was contested by the petitioner herein. In the counter-affidavit, it was clearly stated that the case of illness put forward by the tenant was false and the medical certificate produced by the tenant along with this application should be proved by examining the Doctor.

3. The Rent Controller found that the tenant has failed to prove his illness or his inability to attend court on 112. 1993. The Rent Controller also pointed out that even the counsel for the tenant did not appear before the court, and that there was an earlier occasion in which also, the tenant allowed the proceedings to be decided ex parte.. The Rent Controller further pointed out that the tenant did not enter the witness box to speak in support of his alleged illness. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

4. The tenant filed appeal in R.C.A. No.8 of 1995. The Appellate Authority held that there was no necessity to examine the Doctor to prove the medical certificate and it can be used as evidence without any oral evidence whatever. For that, the Appellate Authority placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Lakshmanan v. Kaliammal, 91 L. W. 486. Further, the Appellate Authority held that whatever may be the number of occasions on which the tenant remained ex parte, the only question to be considered by the court was whether he satisfied the court as to the sufficiency of the cause for his non-appearance on the particular date. In that view, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the ex parte order. Aggrieved thereby, the trust has preferred this revision petition.

.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly points out that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the tenant was suffering from illness and he could not attend court on 112. 1993. If at least the tenant had entered the witness box and spoken about his illness, the court could have considered the same and taken into account the medical certificate as corroborating the version of the tenant. Without any oral evidence, the court cannot accept the medical certificate as evidence by itself and proceed to pass orders on that footing.

6. The ruling in Lakshmanan v. Kaliammal, 91 L. W. 486, has no application to the facts of this case. That arose under 0.26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which an application was filed for the appointment of a Commissioner to record the evidence of the plaintiff therein. The plaintiff stated that he was aged 76 and on account of illness he was unable to attend court. He produced a medical certificate from a registered Medical Practitioner to support his version. That application was dismissed by the trial court and the order of the trial court was challenged before this Court. The court referred to the provisions of O.26, Rule 1, C.P.C. and the explanation thereto, the proviso and the explanation to the rule were introduced by Civil Procedure Code Amending Act 104 of 1976. Under the explanation, the court is enabled for the purpose of that rule to accept a certificate purporting to be signed by a registered Medical practitioner, as evidence of sickness on i