The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rent Controller is considered a court, and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 are applicable to the proceedings pending before the Rent Controller.

1. Challenge is made in this memorandum of civil revision, which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to the fair and decretal order, dated 2.9.2013 and made in an interlocutory application in I.A.No.67 of 2013 in the rent control original petition in R.C.O.P.No.110 of 2011 on the file of the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Madurai Town.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the tenant, whereas the respondent is the landlord.

3. The prime question involved in this revision petition is:

3a. Whether the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 could be made applicable to the Rent Control proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (Tamilnadu Act 18 of 1960).

Background Facts in Brief:

4. The respondent/landlady had filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.110 of 2011 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Madurai Town (Principal District Munsif) as against the revision petitioner under Section 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(ii)and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter it may be referred to as the ‘Act’ wherever the context so require).

5. The said petition was decreed ex parte on 20.12.2011 for want of appearance of the revision petitioner which resulted in a direction to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the petition mentioned property to the respondent/landlady within two months from date of the said order.

6. In order to file an application to set aside the ex parte decree dated 20.12.2011, there was a delay of 430 days and therefore, the revision petitioner/tenant had taken out an application in I.A.No.67 of 2013 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 to condone the delay of 436 days. This petition was dismissed on 02.09.2013 by the learned Rent Controller on the sole ground that the provisions of Section 5of the Limitation Act, 1963, would not be made applicable to the rent control proceedings.

7. Challenging the legality of the said order, the revision petitioner/tenant has approached this Court with this revision after invoking the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. In his affidavit, filed in support of the petition, the revision petitioner/tenant has stated that he had been running a fish farm under the name and style of “Dolphin Fish Farm” and as such often he used to go to several places for the purpose of selling fishes and also for conducting acquarium.

9. That on 22.03.2013 his neighbouring shop owner had informed him that a Court Ameen came and asked him to inform him to hand over the petition mentioned premises to the respondent/landlady. Immediately he had contacted his lawyer and then he was put to understand that on 11.02.2013 ex parte order was passed against him in the execution petition. According to the revision petitioner/tenant he was not served with notice either in the execution proceedings or in the rent control proceedings and therefore he was totally placed under dark about the filing of the rent control original petition as well as the execution petition.

10. On the other hand it is revealed from the counter statement filed by the respondent/landlady that the revision petitioner/tenant had filed a petition in RCOP.No.44 of 2008 to permit him to deposit the arrears of rent and that petition was allowed on 14.09.2009 directing him to pay the rent directly to the respondent/landlady and in pursuant to the said order, the revision petitioner/tenant had paid the rent up to November 2010 at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per mensum. However he was in arrears of rent from December 2010 to March 2013 (28 Months at the rate of 1,200/- per mensum) which comes to an arrears of Rs.33,600/-. Under this circumstance the petition in RCOP.NO.110 of 2011 came to be filed by the respondent/landlady for the eviction of the tenant/revision petitioner under Section 10(2)(1) and 10(3)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,1960.

11. As it is manifested