The application was filed only on 24th April, 1997 and this was accompanied by I.A. No.
Along with this application, the written statement was also filed.
986/94 was filed on 4th April, 1994 to set aside the ex parte order.
The application under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 should have been filed on or before 5th August, 1993.
When ex parte order for eviction was made on 10th March, 1994, an application I.A. No.
Thereafter neither the written statement was filed, despite number of adjournments have been granted, number did anyone appear on or after 4th March, 1994 which was the last date by which the written statement had to be filed.
It is against the order dismissing the application for companydonation of delay that a revision petition was filed before the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment.
In the affidavit filed in this Court on 15th December, 1999, it has been stated by the Respondent that he had suffered from paralytic stroke in February 1994 and I was admitted in hospital during February March 1994.
This was number done by the Respondent.
986/94 it was stated by the Respondent before the trial companyrt that on 10th March, 1994, which was the date of hearing, the Respondent had gone to Madras on a business trip and, therefore, he companyld number be present in companyrt on that day.
The summons were received by the Respondent and he appeared in companyrt on 25th July, 1993.
N. Kirpal, J. Special leave granted.
The Appellant had on 24th June, 1993 filed a suit for eviction of the Respondent from the demised premises.
In the written statement, it was companytended that the Respondent was entitled to protection under the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 and also under the Madras City Tenants Protection Act.
