The main legal point established is that the delay in filing a restoration petition must be justified and not used as a tactic to prolong the legal proceedings.

ORDER :

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980) against the fair and decreetal order dated 31.01.2019 passed in M.P.No.521 of 2018 in RCA.No.602 of 2013 by the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Control Appellate Authority).

This revision petition is filed as against the order passed in M.P.No.521 of 2018 in RCA.No.602 of 2013 passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, whereby, the condone delay petition filed by the revision petitioner/appellant in RCA got dismissed.

2. The Tenant is the revision petitioner before this court. Initially RCOP.No.271 of 2010 has been filed by the landlord for fixing fair rent as Rs.42,850/- before the Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

3. The tenant resisted the RCOP by filing counter, stating that the market value of the property is less than one crore and no sufficient amenities provided in the premises.

4. Based on Engineer’s report filed on both sides and also other evidence, the learned Judge, arrived at the fair rent taking note of (a) Type of building (b) Age of the building, © Depreciation (d) Plinth Area (e) Cost of construction (f) basic amenities (g) land value (h) apportionment and (I) schedule amenities. So, taking 12% for basic amenities, fixed Rs.38,100/- as fair rent and allowed the RCOP from the date of filing of the OP i.e.01.02.2010, by order dated 30.10.2012.

5. As against the order passed in RCOP.No.271/2010, tenant filed RCA.No.602 of 2013 before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal seems to be filed during December 2012, raising the ground that fixing of fair rent on the basis of sale consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- is factually incorrect.

6. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 12.10.2017, dismissed the RCA for non prosecution. It was observed that “the appeal is pending for a long time and the matter was posted as “No further adjournment” but the appellant has not come forward to put forth her side arguments and no representation for the appellant till 4.45 p.m., sufficient time already given, hence, RCA is dismissed for non prosecution”.

7. Subsequently, the tenant filed M.P.No.521 of 2018 in RCA.No.602 of 2013 for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the restoration petition. The said petition has been dismissed by the learned Judge/Appellate Authority, holding that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay.

8. Feeling aggrieved over the dismissal of the said M.P., this Civil Revision is filed.

9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

10. A perusal of records would go to show that RCA itself has been posted for arguments on 12.10.2017 under the caption “No further adjournment”. As the appellant counsel was not present before the court, it was passed over and since till 4.45 p.m., there was no representation for the appellant, RCA was dismissed for default on 12.10.2017.

11. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that since he was not well, he asked his junior counsel to get adjournment. But the junior counsel could not reach on time to the court and found that the appeal was passed over and so went for other court, and when he came to the court, he found that the appeal was dismissed for default.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord would state that the appellate authority granted several adjournments and finally listed on 12.10.2017, but there was no representation on behalf of the appellant/tenant, hence, the appeal was dismissed for default.

13. It is a matter of record that R.C.A. itself is of the year 2013. Fair rent was fixed in RCOP.No.271 of 2010 on 30.10.2012 as Rs. 38,100/-. But the revision petitioner/tenant was paying Rs.6,000/- upto December 2010 and Rs.8,000/- from 2011 onwards and the arrears of rent comes to Rs.32,12,600/- upto November 2018.

14. Even if it is accepted that the contention of the learned counsel for