At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
For the Petitioner : R. Manickavel, Advocate. For the Respondent: V. Mohan, Advocate.
(Prayer: This civil revision petition is preferred against the order dated 20.10.2004 passed by the learned V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.2141 of 2003 in O.S.No.3291 of 2000.)
Heard both sides.
2. The warp and woof of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.3291 of 2000 seeking the following reliefs:
- directing the defendant to vacate and hand over possession of the suit premises viz., RESIDENTIAL at Plot No.22 and 23, Door NO.3, Sabapathy Lane, Foxen Street, Perambur, Chennai 600 011 more fully described in the schedule here under to the plaintiff;
- directing the defendant to pay the said sum of Rs.15/- towards the arrears of rent at the rate of Re.1/- per month from June 1996 to 31.08.1997;
- directing the defendant to pay past damages for use and occupation of Rs.1,320/- per month from 01.09.1997 to 30.06.999 amounting in all to Rs.29,040/-;
- directing the defendant to pay future damages at the rate of Rs.1,320/- from 01.07.1999 till date of surrendering the vacant possession to the plaintiff.
The defendant after entering appearance, contested the suit. The defendant also thought it fit to invoke the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and since there was one day delay, she had chosen to file I.A.No.2141 of 2003 to get the delay condoned. However, the lower Court dismissed the said application on the sole ground that there was no one day delay, but it was two years delay in invoking the benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act. Animadverting upon such order of dismissal, the defendant/revision petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition on various grounds among others.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, would develop his argument to the effect that there were batch of cases and the lower court got itself misled by the factual position and without citing any reason, simply held as though there had been two years delay even though the delay was only one day. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, even in the counter, the plaintiff had stated that there was only 139 days delay in filing the application for invoking the benefits of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act.
4. Perused the order of the lower court. Even though the lower Court stated that the delay was not one day but two years, no details have been furnished in that regard and that too, when the plaintiff itself stated that the delay was only 139 days.
5. Hence, in these circumstances, the impugned order of t
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
he lower Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the lower Court to decide afresh in the light of the observations made supra, after hearing both the sides. 6. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.