Habeeb and A. Basheer Ahmed vs Lucia

M. Venugopal, J.—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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This Court has heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Landlady and

noticed their contentions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.