No proof that the delay was not intentional.

The above revision is filed questioning the correctness of the order of the IX Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, made in I.A.No.7646 of 1982 is O.S.No.9499 of 1981 on 22nd February, 1984.

2. The short facts of the case are as foIlows:The respondent is the landlord with respect to the land bearing No. 181 L (New No. 235). Royapettah High Road Madras-14. The petitioner is the tenant under the respondent paying a monthly rent of Rs 325. The landlady filed O.S. No. 9499 of 1981 against the petitioner seeking their ejectment from the suit property and also claiming damages at Rs. 1,200 for the past and damages for the future at Rs. 600 per mensem. Pending disposal of the suit, an affidavit was filed by one of the partners of the petitioner-firm under section 9 (1) of the Madras City Tenents’ Protection Act seeking purchase of the property which is in his possession. Another Interlocutory application I.A.No. 7645 of 1982 in O.S. No. 9499 of 1981 was filed by one of the partners of the petitioner-firm seeking con-donation of the delay of 55 days under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in filing the petition under S. 9 of the Madras City Tenants’ Protection Act, contending that the petitioner is in possession of the property bearing door No 235, Royapettah High Road, Madras-14 measuring 1424 sq., it., situate in R.S. No. 1137. What was leased out to the petitioner was only a vacant land and the petitioner has put up constructions over the land and completed the same in the year 1954 which bears Door No. 235, Royapettah High Road, Madras-14. Though the original lease expired on 30th September, 1974, the same was renewed subsequently by enhancing the rate of rent to Rs. 326 per month from 1st November, 1974. It was further averred in the affidavit filed by one of the partners of the petitioner firm, who was the defendant in the suit, that he "has already taken out an application under section 9 for a direction to sell the land to the defendant. The summons was served in the above suit on 20th January, 1982. I am not well versed with Court procedure. As the hearing of the suit was on 6th March, 1982, I contacted my counsel on 19th March, 1982. Of course my counsel told me that I have to take out an application under section 2 within 30 days from the date of the service of summons. In fact I instructed my counsel to prepare petition for that purpose. Immediately I had to leave for my business tour of Belgium and Mysore. Unfortunately, I was held up in my business tour and I returned to Madras only in the third week of March, 1982. But I could not contact my counsel immediately as I had jaundice and I was advised bed rest for four weeks. Only now I am able to contact my counsel and signed the affidavit Now there is a delay of 55 days which is neither wilful nor wanton due to the above circumstances."

3. A counter was filed by the landlady respondent herein opposing the petition for condonation of delay, Several points were raised regarding the maintainability of the petition and she contended that the tenant is not entitled to seek the benefits under the Act. Inter alia, it was contended by the landlady that the petition has not been filed by the tenant-petitioner within thirty days to purchase the land as enjoined under the Act, and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to seek benefits under the Act. It was further contended that the right of the yetilioner to purchase the land has been lost by efflux of time under section 9 (1) of the Act, and section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the petitioner. The other several allegations in the affidavit that the petitioner went for his business tour, etc., were denied,

4. The Court below dismissed the petition to condone the delay holding that the petition is not maintainable, since it is filed beyond time. It is against the dismissal of the petition, the above revision is filed by the tenant.

5. The question that requires consideration in this revision