This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.01.2015, passed in RCA No. 27 of 2014, on the file of Rent Controller-Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Court), Madurai, confirming the order and decreetal order, dated 04.06.2014 in I.A. No. 17 of 2014 in RCOP No. 158 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant. The respondent filed RCOP.No.158 of 2009, on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Cum-Rent Controller, Madurai for eviction of the petitioner, on the ground of wilful default and owners occupation. The petitioner has filed his objection on 19.11.2009. On the enquiry in the RCOP, dated 02.09.2010, the respondent was examined in chief as PW.1 and it was posted for cross examination of PW.1. The petitioner took adjournments on various dates. Subsequently, he remained absent. The petitioner did not cross examine the respondent either through his counsel or himself. Therefore, the petitioner was set ex parte on 21.10.2010 and ex parte decree was passed on 21.10.2010, granting two months time for vacating the premises. The petitioner filed I.A. No. 303 of 2012 to condone delay in filing petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The said petition was ordered on 03.04.2013 and the RCOP was restored and posted for cross examination of PW.1, by the petitioner. Subsequently, on various dates, the petitioner did not appear either in person or through his counsel. On 23.04.2013, the Rent Controller issued notice to the petitioner. Even after service of notice, the petitioner did not appear in the Court. He was called absent and set ex parte on 07.06.2013 and the evidence of PW.1 was closed and it was posted for petitioner's evidence. On various dates, petitioner was not present and he was called absent and therefore, the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 21.08.2013 and it was posted for arguments on 27.09.2013. On that day also there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller heard the arguments of the respondent and passed an order of eviction on 04.10.2013, directing the petitioner to vacate and hand over the possession within three months time. Against the said order, on 31.10.2013 he filed an application in I.A. No. 17 of 2014 to set aside the ex parte decree passed in RCOP dated 04.10.2013. The respondent filed counter and resisted the same.

3. After considering all the materials on record and the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent, the Rent Controller, dismissed the I.A. No. 17 of 2014. Against the dismissal order, petitioner filed RCA No. 27 of 2014, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. The revision petitioner filed RCA reiterating the averments made in the set aside petition. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the RCA on 04.06.2014 holding that petitioner has not given reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller in I.A. No. 17 of 2014. Against the said dismissal order, the petitioner has come out with the present revision.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. The Courts below failed to consider that in every stage of the petition, the petitioner had engaged an Advocate before the Trial Court and Appellate Court. The interest of justice requires that a litigant should be given an opportunity to defend his case on merits. The Courts below failed to see that the petitioner and his deceased father were regular in payment of rents and suddenly the respondent herein in collusion with one Veerarahavan tried to evict the petitioner against the statute. In support of his contention the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments:

(i) 1992(1) MLJ 595 (Sumitra Bai Vs. V.G. Shyamsundar Sah), para 7 reads