Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
N. Gopalakrishnan - Petitioner
Vs.
N. Babu - Respondent
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.4491 & 4492 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 in C.R.P.(NPD).No.4492 of 2015
Decided On : 20-10-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Menon
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Lakshminarayanan
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the party seeking condonation of delay must provide sufficient cause for the delay, and in the absence of acceptable reasons, the delay cannot be condoned.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Rent Control - 2007-3-L.W. 690, 1999 M.L.J. (Supp) 409, AIR 1972 SC 749, AIR 1981 SC 1400, AIR 1998 SC 258, (1979) 4 SCC 365, (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases 680
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed for eviction of the tenant on grounds of willful default, denial of title, and own use and occupation. The tenant contested the eviction, claiming ownership of the property and disputing the landlord's title.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant failed to provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte order of eviction. The court held that the delay could not be condoned without sufficient cause.
Issues: The main issue was whether the tenant had shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the exparte order of eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the party seeking condonation of delay must provide sufficient cause for the delay, and in the absence of acceptable reasons, the delay cannot be condoned.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed as the tenant failed to provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
Challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.C.A.Nos.306 & 307 of 2012 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, (Appellate Authority), Chennai, confirming the fair order passed in M.P.Nos.376 & 377 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.1301 of 2009 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, (Rent Controller), Chennai, the tenant has filed the above Civil Revision Petitions.
2. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.1301 of 2009 for eviction on the ground of willful default, denial of title and own use and occupation.
3. The brief case of the landlord is as follows:
According to the landlord, the tenant is his brother. The property originally belonged to one K. Subbaiah, who died intestate on 14.05.1976, leaving behind his wife and children. Subsequently, the landlord purchased the property from them on 09.05.1983 and also constructed a house therein. Subsequently, based on an oral Agreement on 01.01.1988, the property was leased out to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,800/-. Subsequently, the rent was increased to Rs.2,800/-. On 31.12.1997, the landlord called upon the tenant to pay Rs.2,16,000/- towards arrears of rent. During that period, the landlord's wife joined Stanley Medical College to pursue her Post Graduation and hence, she was in need of a house. Immediately, the landlord approached the tenant for the requirement of his wife and also requested the tenant to pay the arrears of rent. Subsequently, the landlord sent another letter to the tenant to vacate the premises and to pay arrears of rent on or before 15.11.2006. However, the tenant failed to pay the arrears of rent and also did not vacate the premises. On 22.03.2009, the landlord issued another notice to the tenant demanding arrears of rent of Rs.5,96,800/-. On receipt of the notice, the tenant sent a reply stating that he had purchased the property and disputed the title of the landlord. The landlord filed Rent Control Original Petition for eviction on the ground of willful default, denial of title and own use and occupation.
4. The brief case of the tenant is as follows:
According to the tenant, he has not paid a single pie towards rent to the landlord for the reason that he has no title over the property. The tenant has stated that the purchase made by the landlord on 09.05.1983 was not out of his own funds and only he has paid the amount for the purchase of the property. The respondent put up construction in the vacant site and occupied the same in the year 1985. All the taxes and other public outgoings for the property were paid only by him for the past 25 years. Since the alleged landlord is not the owner of the property, the tenant has not paid any rent to him. In these circumstances, the tenant prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Subsequently, the tenant remained absent before the Rent Controller and hence, he was set exparte and an exparte order of eviction was passed on 26.02.2010. Thereafter, the tenant filed an application in M.P.No.376 of 2010 in R.C.O.P. No. 1301 of 2009 to condone the delay of 139 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order dated 26.02.2010. The tenant also filed a petition in M.P.No.377 of 2010 to set aside the exparte order dated 26.02.2010.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the tenant has stated that he entered appearance through his counsel at Chennai in Rent Control Original Petition and immediately thereafter, he left to Kerala to retrieve the papers connected with the said house property and in Kerala, it took lot of time for searching for the papers and in the meanwhile, he fell sick and therefore, could not contact his counsel. Further, he has stated that he came to know about the exparte order only when he received the summons in the execution proceedings. In paragraph-4 of the affidavit, the tenant has stated that he came to know that one of his counsel S.Hariharan was admitted in a hospital in the month of October 2009 due to rat fever (Leptospirosis) and he came ba
