This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order of the learned Rent Controller, Mayiladuthurai in I.A. No. 19 of 1989 in R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 1988, dated 11.7.1990.

2. The tenant is the petitioner herein. The respondent/landlord got an order of eviction on 5.4.1988. It is seen from the order of the learned Rent Controller that summons were served by affixture. The petitioner moved the Court below for setting aside the exparte order with a delay of 79 days, and a petition for condoning the delay of 79 days was also filed. The learned Rent Controller, while disposing of the petition, held that S. 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to proceedings under the Rent Control Act and, therefore, the petition for condoning the delay will not lie. Apart rom that, the learned Rent Controller also found that the reasons given by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for excusing the delay were inconsistent and, therefore, found on merits that there was no case for condoning the delay. It is against the said Order, that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Mr. A. Muthu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the view tak