IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01/07/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
C.R.P.NPD No.808 of 2003
Allahabad Bank
Karur Branch
880, Jawahar Bazaar,
Karur,
rep. by its Branch Manager .. Petitioner
-Vs-
Rukmani Ammal .. Respondent
This civil revision petition is preferred under S.25 of The Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the fair and decretal order
passed by the Sub Court, Karur in I.A.No.1103 of 2001 in R. C.A.No.5 of 1998
dated 29.11.2002.
!For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.A.Muthukirushnan
^For Respondent : ---
:ORDER
This revision petition is brought forth challenging an order of the
learned Subordinate Judge, Karur, wherein an application to condone the delay
of 464 days in filing an application to set aside the abatement which occurred
in R.C.A.No.5 of 1998.
2. After careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner and scrutiny of the materials available, the Court
is unable to notice any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the
Court below so as to make an interference.
3. Admittedly, one Govinda Konar, the landlord of an immovable
property, wherein the revision petitioner Bank is being run as a tenant, filed
R.C.O.P.No.4 of 1994 for fixation of fair rent. On severe contest by the
revision petitioner Bank, the fair rent was fixed at Rs.9,5 00/- per month by
an order dated 30.7.1998. The said order of the Rent Controller was
challenged by the revision petition by filing an appeal in R.C.A.No.5 of 1998,
which was pending on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. On
15.3.1999 the said Govinda Konar died, which fact was brought to the notice of
the Court below. The lower Court has pointed out that the said fact of death
was also intimated to the opposite party on 23.12.1999, but no steps were
taken on the side of the Bank. In such circumstances, the Rent Control
Appellate Authority had no option than to dismiss the appeal as one abated.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed as one abated by an order dated
12.10.2000. The revision petitioner Bank filed an application to set aside
the said abatement along with an application to condone the delay of 464 days
in filing the set aside application.
4. What was contended by the revision petitioner Bank before the
lower Court and equally here also is that it was the Banking Institution; that
they were not aware of the fact as to the death of Govinda Konar, the
landlord, and apart from that, the same was also not intimated to the Bank
properly, and hence, they could not take steps for filing the application in
time, and in that process, the delay was caused. This contention cannot be
accepted. The lower Court has pointed out that the said fact of death was
intimated to the Court by filing Ex.B2 memo. That apart, it remains to be
stated that the Bank, who is the revision petitioner herein, has appeared
before the Rent Control Authority in the proceedings for fixation of fair rent
and contested the same severely; that aggrieved over the fixation of fair rent
at Rs.9,500/-, the petitioner Bank has preferred an appeal before the Rent
Control Appellate Authority, and the same was also pending thereon; and that
the Counsel was also appearing in the said proceedings. In such
circumstances, the Officials of the bank are expected to know the pendency of
the proceedings and the progress in the same. Once the fact of death of
Govinda Konar, the landlord, was brought to the notice of the lower Appellate
Authority by way of a memo on 23.12.1999 , a duty was cast upon the revision
petitioner Bank to take steps in time, but it was not done so. The Court is
of the view that the delay of 464 days caused, under the circumstances of the
case, is highly inordinate, which cannot be excused unless and until it is
properly explained by the revision petitioner Bank.
5. Apart from the above, one strong circumstance which has got to be
noticed, is that after the disposal of the appeal, the legal representatives
of the landlord filed a suit for recovery of the rental dues in O.S.No.487 of
2001, wherein they have paid a Court fee of Rs.53,3 13/-, and the said suit is
also pending. Only after the service of the summons in the suit, the Bank has
filed the application to set aside the abatement along with the delay
condonation application, which in the circumstances, would clearly indicate
the lethargic attitude of the Bank Officials, and the carelessness to the
Court proceedings. Hence, the Court cannot in any way show any indulgence.
The lower Court was perfectly correct in dismissing the application for
condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside the abatement.
The order of the Court below has got to be sustained.
6. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No
costs.
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
To:
The Subordinate Judge, Karur.
nsv/
