Furnishing of sufficient cause for delay is must.

1. An important question to be considered in this revision is, whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable when there is a delay in filing petition by the tenant under Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, (in short "the Act") after a period of one month as prescribed therein.

2. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Munsif dated 15.2.1999 made in I.A.No.1168 of 1997 in O.S.No.722 of 1996, allowing the application filed under Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Act, the plaintiff therein has filed the present revision.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.722 of 1999 before the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore against the respondent/defendant, directing her to vacate and surrender possession of the suit property either with the superstructure and trees after receiving the compensation for the same. The defendant filed a written statement disputing various averments made in the plaint. Pending suit, the respondent herein - defendant, filed I.A.No.1168 of 1997 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 278 days in filing the petition under Section 9(1 )(a) of the Act.

4. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application it is stated that, she was served with the summons and she engaged an Advocate. She is an old lady and suffering from Asthma and other ailments due to her old age she had been bed ridden and she could not move about. She requested her Advocate to take time for filing written statement and when she felt some what better only a week back she met her Advocate to give instructions to prepare the written statement. Her Advocate told her that, a separate application has to be filed under Section 9 of the Act. She was not negligent or indifferent.

5. In the counter statement filed by the respondent therein, it is stated that all the allegations mentioned in the affidavit are invented just for the purpose of filing the application under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner entered appearance through her Advocate even on 21.8.1996 and on that date her Advocate offered to file vakalath for herself. Summons in the suit was served on her even prior to that date. The petitioner must have filed the petition under Section 9 of the Act, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the summons. But, no proper explanation has been given in the above application for the delay. The petitioner is squatting on the property from 1975 without paying any rent. There is no valid reason to condone the delay.

6. Beforethe learned District Munsif, the petitioner therein got herself examined as P.W.1 and also produced and marked O.P. Chit dated 7.1.1997 issued by the Government Hospital, Pondicherry as Ex.P.1. The respondent therein was examined as R.W.1 and also marked two documents as Exs.R.1 and R.2. The learned Principal District Munsif, after considering the materials placed, directed the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.200.00 to the respondent and condoned the delay in filing petition under Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Act, against which the present revision is filed.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the respondent.

8. Mr.S.K. Raghunathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by drawing my attention to a specific provision, namely 9(1)(a)(i) of the Act, would contend that, in the light of the prescribed period therein and in the absence of any other provision for condonation of delay, the application filed by the respondent herein for condoning the delay of 278 days is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

9. On the other hand, Mr.R. Muralidharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that, in view of the intention of the enactment and in the absence of any specific exclusion of Limitation Act, particularly Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the learned Principal District Munsif is right in entertaining the application and condoning the delay; accordingly prayed