ORDER :

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 18.08.2022 in I.A.No.93 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.34 of 2015 in the Court of the Rent Controller & District Munsif at Ootacamund.

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the Fair and Decreetal Order dated 18.08.2022 in I.A.No.93 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.34 of 2015 in the Court of the Rent Controller & District Munsif at Ootacamund.

2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondent/landlord instituted a proceedings for eviction under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act) 1960. The Rent Control Original Proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.34 of 2015 was filed by the respondent/landlord on the ground that the husband of the revision petitioner Late Mr. Munian was the tenant originally and he died on 20.04.2015, leaving behind the revision petitioner and her children. Thus, the revision petitioner inherited the tenancy through her husband Late Sri. Munian. The respondent/landlord purchased the Schedule property through Sale Deed dated 04.10.2013 from Mr. P. Singaram, S/o. Late P. Ponnabalam and Smt. Bagam, W/o. Late Ayyakannu and her sons and daughter. The revision petitioner / tenant was in possession at that point of time and oral tenancyship was agreed and accordingly, the revision petitioner was continued to be in possession.

3. The respondent/landlord issued a legal notice to the revision petitioner/tenant to pay the arrears of rent from 01.10.2013 onwards, since the revision petitioner had committed default in payment of rent. The respondent/landlord has stated that she is not owning any residential house building at Ootacamund Town and further, the building is also very old and constructed originally by mudwalls and roofed with low quality Zink sheet with Mangalore tiles. Thus, it was in a dilapidated condition.

4. The daughter of the respondent/landlord was residing at Coimbatore and the landlord wanted to demolish the entire building and reconstruct the same. For her family usage and for owner's occupation. The revision petitioner/tenant filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.26 of 2014 on the file of the District Munsiff Court at Udagamandalam for permanent injunction. Even thereafter, the respondent/landlord issued a legal notice on 01.03.2014 to the revision petitioner to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession. The husband of the revision petitioner admitted the relationship of landlord-tenant and after his demise, the revision petitioner has refused to evict the premises.

5. The Rent Controller issued notice to the revision petitioner/tenant, but the revision petitioner failed to appear before the Rent Controller in RCOP Proceedings filed in R.C.O.P.No.34 of 2015. Consequently, the Rent Controller passed an order on 07.06.2016 and allowed the said R.C.O.P on merits. Eviction was ordered and time for eviction was granted two months from 07.06.2016. R.C.O.P.No.34 of 2015 was allowed on 07.06.2016 and even after two months, the revision petitioner/tenant had not vacated the premises. The respondent/landlord filed Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.6 of 2017. After filing of the Execution Petition, the revision petitioner/tenant filed I.A.No.93 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.34 of 2015 to set aside the ex-parte decree by condoning the delay of 854 days in filing the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The trial Court considered the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reason stated by the revision petitioner/tenant was that she suffered Jaundice and taking Ayurvedic treatment at Kerala and was in complete bed rest. Thus, she could not contact her counsel during the relevant point of time, when the RCOP Proceedings were pending. It is further contended that there was a misunderstanding between the revision petitioner and her counsel and thus, there was a communication gap and therefore, she could not able to file a petition