Decree for eviction passed by the court was not an ex-parte decree.

1. The petitioner in this civil revision petition is the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Tambaram. The respondents are the landlords.

2. The respondents filed the above R.C.O.P. under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 seeking for an order to put them in possession of TT schedule property. Pending the R.C.O.P., the landlords filed I.A.No. 144 of 1997 under Section 11(4) of the Act. Since the tenant did not file counter, he was set ex parte on 13.11.97 and the tenant was given two weeks time to pay the rental arrears and the petition was directed to be posted on 27.11.97. On the said date eviction was ordered granting one month time to the tenant to vacate the petition mentioned premises. The tenant thereafter filed M.P.No.21 of 1999 to condone the delay of 533 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte order of eviction. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned District Munsif cum Rent Controller by order dated 5.1.2001. It is against the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

3. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner would contend that due to domestic reasons and business reasons, the application to set aside the ex parte order of eviction could not be filed in time as he could not meet his Advocate. The learned counsel submitted that while considering the question of condonation of delay, the learned Rent Controller has not properly appreciated the reasons adduced by the revision petitioner. The learned counsel would contend that even if the delay is not properly explained, the petitioner should not be punished with denial of opportunity to prosecute the case wherein his valuable rights are involved. The learned counsel would rely upon the judgments of this Court reported in R.M.Arunachalam v. PL.R.Arunachalam Chettiar and others, 2001 (1) MLJ105. Devi and others v. K.Jayaraman, 2001 (1) MLJ 231 and in Samuel alias Manas and another v. Dasammanapathy and others, 2001 (1) MLJ 568. The learned counsel would also rely upon another judgment of this Court reported in V.Janakamma v. V.G.Rangaraj, 1973 L.W. 313 to contend that even if an ex parte order was passed and the tenant was represented by his counsel, the application for condonation of delay can be considered.

4. Onthe other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that when once the delay is not properly explained by the petitioner and the said delay is enormous as in this case, application for condonation of delay cannot be lightly viewed and ordered. The learned counsel would further contend that it is not as if the petitioner was not aware of the ex parte order of eviction passed on 27.11.97. In fact, by order dated 13.11.97 in I.A.No.144 of 1997 taken out by the landlords under Section 11(4) of the Act, the learned Rent Controller granted two weeks time to the tenant to pay the rental arrears and thereafter directed the matter to be called on 27.11.97. The tenant did not comply with the condition and did not also file counter and hence the final order of eviction in the R.C.O.P. was ordered granting one month time to the tenant to vacate the premises. Thereafter only the application for condonation of delay of 533 days was filed to set aside the ex parte order of eviction. The learned counsel would further contend that the order of eviction passed in I.A.No.144 of 1997 was on merit and the tenant has not neither complied with the said order nor filed any appeal. Therefore, when the said order has become final, the consequential order in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 1997 cannot be considered as an exparte order and hence the petition to set aside the ex parte order is not maintainable and consequently the petition to condone the delay to set aside the said order is also not maintainable. The learned counsel would further contend that R.C.O.P.No.27 of 1997 filed by the landlords against the tenant/revisio