N CHELLAPANDI Vs. C KAATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Madurai Town dated 21. 12. 2004 made in I. A. No. 207 2004 in R. C. O. P. No. 174 of 2000.

(2.) THE respondent herein being the landlord has filed R. C. O. P. No. 174 of 2000 against the petitioner herein before the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Madurai Town for eviction of the petitioner/tenant on the ground of wilful default. In the said Eviction Petition, an ex parte order has been passed against the petitioner herein on 9. 2. 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an Application to set aside the said ex parte order with an Application to condone the delay in preferring the said Application. The said Application to condone the delay in preferring the Application to set aside the ex parte order was dismissed on 21. 12. 2004 and the present Revision is directed against the said order.

(3.) MR. R. Janakiramulu, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Madurai Town ought to have allowed the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the sole ground that no notice has been served on the petitioner in R. C. O. P. No. 174 of 2000. Further, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not the tenant of the premises and the real tenant is "kathirvel Accounts Book Shop", a partnership concern in which the petitioner is also one of the partners. The learned counsel further submitted that though there is a delay of 1246 days, the length of delay should not be taken note of in view of the fact that no notice has been served on the petitioner in the main R. C. O. P.