T.T.Saravanan v. Aravind

CRP NO. 5347 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-11-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP NO. 5347 of 2025 T.T.Saravanan Petitioner Vs Aravind Respondent Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the learned I Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in R.L.T.A.SR.No.6520 of 2024.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Manoj Sreevalsan For Respondent : Mr.N.S.Suganthan For Mrs.K.Amuthavalli

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Rent 1/4

Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 to condone the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal challenging the dismissal of eviction of RLTOP No.532 of 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that though order copy was made ready on 05.04.2024 and thirty days time was available for the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Rent Tribunal, the appeal came to be filed on-line on 02.05.2024 and due to some technical glitch in the ECourt system, the payment of Court fee alone was reflected and filing of the appeal was not reflected. He states that no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent, since admittedly the appeal has been filed on 02.05.2024.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/caveator would submit that the petitioner served two different affidavits on the respondent, one indicating that the delay is 36 days and the other delay is 72 days and therefore, it is proper that the petitioner/landlord files a fresh application. However, he has no objection for the order of the Tribunal bing set aside and the matter being remitted to the Rent Tribunal. However, it appears that the tenant has got copy of the delay petition filed regarding representation and 2/4

downloaded the same from the website and therefore, the respondent has objected to the delay condonation petition before the Tribunal.

5. I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The delay is also not inordinate being 36 or 72, though it is sufficiently clarified also, the delay in filing is only 36 days.

6. In the light of the above, the order of the Tribunal dismissing the application in IA No.1 of 2024 in RLTA SR No.6520 of 2024 is set aside and the delay in filing the RLTA SR No.6520 of 2024 is condoned. The Tribunal is directed to number RLTA SR No.6520 of 2024 after hearing the counsel on either side, the same shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of numbering.

With the above direction, the revision is allowed. No costs. 17-11-2025 Index:yes/no Website:yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order sr 3/4

P.B.BALAJI.,J sr To The I Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.

CRP NO. 5347 of 2025 17.11.2025 4/4