The main legal point established is that valid reasons for failing to contest proceedings, such as the petitioner's purchase under the SARFAESI Act, can influence the court to set aside orders and direct the disposal of proceedings on merits.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of delivery of possession passed in EP.No.73 of 2011 in RCOP.No.22 of 2010 dated 28.06.2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif at Vellore allowing the petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 35 of CPC and under Section 18 of TNC Act, 1960.

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of delivery of possession passed in EP.No.74 of 2011 in RCOP.No.23 of 2010 dated 28.06.2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif at Vellore allowing the petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 35 of CPC and under Section 18 of TNC Act, 1960.

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.06.2015 passed in IA.No.53 of 2013 in RCOP.No.22 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vellore.

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.06.2015 passed in IA.No.54 of 2013 in RCOP.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vellore.

1. The civil revision petitions in CRP.PD.No.2723 & 2724 of 2013 have been filed against the order of delivery of possession passed in EP.Nos.73 & 74 of 2011 in RCOP.Nos.22 & 23 of 2010 dated 28.06.2013 on the file of the Additional District Munsif at Vellore thereby allowing the petitions for delivery of possession. The civil revision petitions in CRP.PD.Nos.3361 & 3362 of 2015 have been filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 23.06.2015 passed in IA.Nos.53 & 54 of 2013 in RCOP.Nos.22 & 23 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vellore thereby dismissing the petitions to condone the delay in filing the set aside the exparte order passed in Rent Control proceedings.

2. In all the civil revision petitions, the petitioner is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. The respondent filed eviction petition on the ground of wilful default, acts of waste and owner's occupation. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner was inducted as tenant for non residential shop premises by unregistered agreement dated 01.08.1999 between the petitioner and the erstwhile owner's wife of the petition premises. On 18.06.2003, the respondent purchased petition premises for valid sale consideration and after the date of purchase of the petition premises, the respondent became absolute owner of the petition premises. Thereafter, the petitioner paid rent regularly to the respondent and from the month of April 2008, the petitioner failed to pay the rent. Further he also caused damages to the floors, doors and halls of the petition premises and not maintained properly. Since the respondent is carrying the business of beedi threads at large scale, he needs the petition premises for his own occupation to develop his business. On receipt of the notice from the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Rent Controller and as such he was set exparte and ordered eviction dated 07.10.2010.

3. Mr.E.Om Prakash, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition premises having been purchased the same in auction sale under the SARFAESI Act. Sale was brought by the Indian Bank, Vellore under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner was originally inducted as tenant by the erstwhile owner of the petition premises on 01.05.2000 and also entered into sale agreement. The erstwhile owner of the petition premises borrowed loan with the Indian Bank and thereafter he committed default. Therefore, the Indian Bank has initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by issuing demand notice. Thereafter, the petition premises were brought for auction sale, in which the petitioner purchased the petition premises which was mortgaged with Indian Bank by the registered sale deed dated 13.0