Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49892
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
Ziaullah Thiruvallur Azeem – Appellant
Versus
J.Siranjeevi – Respondent
CRP No. 2885 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Jayaprakash
For the Respondents: No appearance
The court upheld the tenant's rights under the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, allowing the revival of his application to purchase land due to procedural missteps.
Headnote:This civil revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order passed in I.A. No.88/2020 in I.A. No.245/2016 in OS No.12/2016 dated 13.07.2022. The petitioner, a tenant, sought to purchase the land belonging to the respondent under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, with a prior application dismissed due to the petitioner's non-appearance. The court found it necessary to set aside the trial court's dismissal to allow the petitioner to prosecute his application on merits. The issues framed include whether the dismissal order should be set aside. The court reasoned that the previous dismissal could have been resolved and upheld the petitioner’s substantial rights under the law. This civil revision petition is allowed, and the order in I.A. No. 88/2020 in I.A. No. 245/2016 in OS No. 12/2016 dated 13.07.2022 is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial discretion to uphold tenant's application. (Para 4) |
ORDER
The petitioner is the tenant who has taken out an application in I.A. No.
245/2016 under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act to purchase the land which belongs to the respondent/plaintiff.
2.The said application was being enquired into, and at the stage of cross-
examination, it appears that due to the non-appearance of the petitioner, the application came to be dismissed. In order to set aside the said order of dismissal, IA No. 88/2020 was filed. However, the said application was also dismissed, against which the present revision has been filed.
3.Heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Despite service of notice and sufficient opportunity being given to the respondents, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.
4.The suit is one for recovery of possession, and admittedly the petitioner has exercised his statutory right to purchase the property under Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act . The said application will have to be necessarily decided on merits, and especially considering that the application to set aside the dismissal order was filed in time, I am inclined to set aside the order of the trial court in order to give an opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute his application for purchasing land from the respondent/plaintiff. 5.In view of the above discussion, this civil revision petition is allowed.
The order in I.A.NO. 88 of 2020 in I.A.NO.245/2016 in OS.NO.12/2016 dated 13.07.2022 is consequently set aside, and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the interlocutory application in I.A.No.88 of 2020 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on merits in accordance with the law. No costs.
