B.N. Kirpal and; S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
( 1 ) Special leave granted.
( 2 ) The respondent had filed in 1989 an eviction petition inter alia on the ground that the property had to be reconstructed. It was also alleged that the tenant had made certain alterations.
( 3 ) The trial court dismissed the said petition and the respondent filed a revision before the High Court. On 14-7-1998, a Single Judge of the High court set aside the order of the trial court and ordered eviction of the appellant herein under Section 21 (1) (f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. It appears that an application for review was filed in which it was stated that counsel for the appellant herein was not present at the time when the High court allowed the revision petition and the order under review which had stated that the counsel for the parties had been heard was erroneous. The high Court dismissed the application for review in limine. Hence these appeals by special leave.
( 4 ) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
( 5 ) It appears to us that the averment made in the review application that no one was present on behalf of the appellant at the time when the revision was taken up for hearing, was not without any basis. The cause title in the order passed in revision indicates the name of the counsel for the petitioner before the High Court but does not indicate the name of any counsel for the respondent before the High Court, nor is there any mention that any of the respondents before the High Court was present in person.
( 6 ) Considering the fact that the High Court was setting aside an order whereby the eviction petition had been dismissed, the High Court in our opinion ought to have allowed the application for review and heard the matter on merits. We do not intend to express any opinion on the merits of the case but we are clearly of the opinion that on the facts as stated here in above, the High Court should have given an opportunity to the appellant herein to defend the civil revision which had been filed by the landlord.
( 7 ) For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed, orders of the high Court are set aside and HRRP No. 361 of 1994 is restored on the file of the High Court. The High Court is requested to dispose of the said petition at an early date, if possible within six months.