ORDER :

Abdul Quddhose, J.

1. The points for consideration in these revisions are as follows:

(a) Whether the tenant in an ejectment suit where an ex parte decree has been passed against the tenant is empowered to file an application under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 even before the ex parte decree is set aside.

(b) Whether sufficient reasons have been given by the petitioner/tenant for condonation of delay of 22 years in filing an application under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.

2. The instant civil revision petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 30.04.2012 passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur in unnumbered I.A. SR. 2490 of 2011 in O.S. No. 150 of 2010 and also the consequential order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur in unnumbered I.A. SR. 2491 of 2011 in O.S. No. 150 of 2010.

Brief facts leading to the filing of these revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:

3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the defendant in the ejectment suit O.S. No. 300 of 1974 and the respondent is the legal heir of the plaintiff. Originally the said ejectment suit O.S. No. 300 of 1974 was filed by one Ramakrishnan/plaintiff against Natarajan/defendant before the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee and subsequently, transferred to the file of the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur and renumbered as O.S. No. 150 of 2010. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant seeking for a direction to direct the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property, after demolishing the unauthorised construction put up by the defendant.

4. An ex parte decree dated 30.10.1974 came to be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in O.S. No. 300 of 1974. An execution petition viz., E.P. No. 119 of 1985 was also filed by the legal representatives of the decree holder/plaintiff before the learned District Munsif, Ponneri to execute the ex parte decree dated 30.10.1974. I.A. No. 1817 of 1997 was filed by the tenant/revision petitioners who are the legal representatives of the deceased Natarajan, the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30.10.1974 and the said application came to be allowed on 17.08.2010 and the renumbered suit O.S. No. 150 of 2010 was restored to file on 17.08.2010. I.A. SR. 6503 of 1985 which was subsequently renumbered as I.A. SR. 2490 of 2011 was filed by the tenant/defendant under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 on 02.09.1985 and the said application was returned by the Court on 08.02.1988 and represented only on 14.11.2011.

5. By order dated 30.04.2012, the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur, dismissed I.A. SR. 2490 of 2011 in O.S. No. 150 of 2010 on the ground that the petitioners have not given sufficient reasons to condone the delay of more than 22 years in filing an application under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921. In view of the dismissal of I.A. SR. 2490 of 2011, by a consequential order dated 09.04.2013, the Trial Court returned the amendment application filed in I.A. SR. 2491 of 2011. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2012 passed in I.A. SR. 2490 of 2011 in O.S. No. 150 of 2010 and the consequential order dated 09.04.2013 passed in I.A. SR. 2491 of 2011 in O.S. No. 150 of 2010 by the learned District Munsif, Thiruvottiyur, the instant civil revision petitions have been filed.

Submissions of the learned counsels:

6. Heard Mr. G. Dilipkumar learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the respondent.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Trial Court on misconception of fact held that the application filed by the petitioners under Section 9 of the Chennai City Tenant Protection Act, 1921 is barred by law of limitation as it has been represented with delay of more than 22 years. According to him, the petitioners' father