BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20/01/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.1189 of 2004 & CMP No.9406 of 2004 1.Habeeb 2.A.Basheer Ahmed ..Petitioners/Respondents Petitioners vs Lucia ..Respondent/Petitioner/ ..Respondent PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and final order dated 15.12.2003 made in I.A.No.16 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Ramanad. !For Petitioners... Mr.V.Chinnakaruppan ^For Respondent ... Mr.V.Raghavachari :ORDER
The Revision Petitioners/Respondents/Tenants have preferred the present
Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 15.12.2003 in I.A.No.16 of
2003 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002 passed by the learned Rent Controller
viz.,Principal District Munsif, Ramanathapuram.
2.The learned Rent Controller namely, the Principal District
Munsif,Ramanad, while passing an order in I.A.No.16 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of
2002 on 15.12.2003, has among other things observed that the reason assigned by
the Respondent/Petitioner in application is considered to be a true one and also
opined that by allowing the Interlocutory Application, no prejudice will be
caused to the Revision Petitioner/Tenant and added further has allowed the
application with costs with a view to provide one more opportunity to further
prosecute the petition and also in the interest of justice.
3.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Tenants submits that
the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller in I.A.No.16 of 2003 in
R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002 dated 15.12.2003, is contrary to the law and as a matter of
fact, the learned Rent Controller has allowed the Interlocutory Application
without assigning any valid reasons.
4.Advancing his arguments, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for
the Petitioners that in the affidavit in I.A.No.16 of 2003 filed by the
Respondent praying to condone the delay of 155 days in filing the petition to
set aside the ex-parte order dated 16.09.2002, the Respondent has not given any
sufficient and valid reasons for condonation of delay of 155 days except making
a mention that she has been suffering from stomach pain.
5.Expatiating his submissions, the learned Counsel for the Revision
Petitioners/Tenants submits that there is no explanation from the Respondent as
to how many days she has been suffering from stomach ache. Added further, the
Respondent has not produced any Doctor’s Certificate besides adducing no oral
evidence before the learned Rent Controller in I.A.No.16 of 2003.
6.Apart from the above, it is the plea of the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners that the Respondent/Landlady has never disputed the quantum of rent
of Rs. 1,200/- per month and the period. But, she refused to receive the rent
only with the ulterior motive and the proper course of auction for the Revision
Petitioner/Tenant is to project the petition as per Section 8(5) of The Tamil
Nadu Buildings (Lease and Control) Act,1960. In fact, the Respondent/Landlady
is not an aggrieved person in any manner in lieu of the ex-parte order dated
16.09.2002.
7.Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the
Respondent/Landlady that the learned Rent Controller has allowed the I.A.No.16
of 2003 filed by the Respondent/Landlady (filed for condonation of delay of 155
days) by accepting the averments made by the Respondent in I.A.No.16 of 2003, to
be a true one and also further opined that by allowing the I.A.No.16 of 2003 no
prejudice will be caused to the Revision Petitioner and has also opined that one
more opportunity is to be given to the Respondent/Landlady to further prosecute
the petition and resultantly, allowed the I.A. with costs in the interest of
justice. Indeed, the learned Rent Controller has exercised his judicial
discretion in a fair and proper manner and the said discretion so exercised by
the learned Rent Controller cannot be construed to be an arbitrary or capricious
one and consequently, prays for the dismissal of the petition filed by the
petitioner.
8.This Court has heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Landlady and noticed their
contentions.
9.It is to be noted that in I.A.No.16 of 2003, the Respondent/Landlady has
categorically averred that she is a lady and more often, she has been suffering
from stomach pain and as such, she has not been in a position to meet her
Counsel to file the application in time and also that there is an occasion in
delay of 155 days for the period from 01.10.2002 to 03.03.2003. The absence of
the Respondent/Petitioner is not wanton. However, the Revision Petitioners have
filed the counter in I.A.No.16 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002 to the effect
that the Respondent/Landlady will not have to prove the averments made by her in
her affidavit in I.A.No.16 of 2003 and the reasons assigned by the
Respondent/Landlady that she has been suffered from stomach ailment frequently
and therefore, she has not appeared before the Rent Controller on 16.09.2002 and
consequently, an ex-parte decree has been passed. Furthermore, in I.A.No.16 of
2003 it is not mentioned that the Respondent/Landlady has been suffering from
stomach ache for six months and for the condonation of delay of 155 days, in
I.A.No.16 of 2003, no proper reasons has been assigned and therefore, I.A.No.16
of 2003 is not maintainable in law.
10.Generally, when a Court of law deals with condonation of delay, it has
to deal with the same not with pedantic approach, instead, a Court of law has to
adopt a liberal and lenient view and that too, adopting a pragmatic common sense
rational approach. By and large, a litigant/party does not project an
application belatedly. When delivering of substantial justice, technical
considerations are pitted against each other, then the deliverance of
substantial justice will have to prefer by a Court of law overriding
technicalities by allowing a condonation delay of application. The highest thing
that can happen is that a party is permitted to enter into the main arena of
legal proceedings and there is a possibility of main cause being to be decided
on merits, of course, after hearing the parties. It is needless to point out
that the length and breadth of delay mentioned by the party in condonation delay
application is not a material factor.
11.On going through the orders of the learned Rent Controller in I.A.No.16
of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2003 dated 15.12.2003, it is quite evident that the
learned Rent Controller has accepted the reason assigned by the
Respondent/Landlady that she is a lady and she has been suffering from stomach
ailment frequently. Though an argument is advanced on behalf of the petitioner
that the Respondent/Landlady for her ailment of stomach pain, she has not
produced the Medical Certificate, this court opines that non production of the
said Medical Certificate before the learned Rent Controller in I.A.No.6 of 2002
has not factually affected the case projected by her. The learned Rent
Controller or a Court of law has power to exercise the judicial discretion while
dealing with application before it.
12.In the present case on hand, the learned Rent Controller has accepted
the reasons projected by the Respondent/Landlady that she is a lady and further,
she has been suffering from stomach pain and the reasons so assigned have been
found to be a case of sufficient cause by the learned Rent Controller and by
exercising the said judicial discretion, the learned Rent Controller has not
committed any material irregularity or patent illegality warranting interference
at the hands of this Court sitting in the Revision. Looking it from any angle,
the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits. Viewed in the perspective, the
Civil Revision Petition fails.
13.In the result the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the
parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the order passed by the Rent
Controller in I.A.No.16 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 2002 is confirmed by this
Court for the reasons assigned by this Court in this Revision Petition.
Consequently connected CMP is also dismissed.
gsr
To
The Rent Controller
(Principal District Munsif)
Ramanad.