Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

C.R.P. (PD) No. 378 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014. Case: K. Rajagopalan Vs Gnanapandithan. High Court of Madras (India)

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberC.R.P. (PD) No. 378 of 2014 and M.P. No. 1 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: K. Ramu, Advocate and For Respondents: K.K.N. Ganesan, Advocate
JudgesR. Mala, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order I Rule 10(2); Order XIX Rules 1, 2; Sections 115, 141, 151, 4, 94(6); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3; Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 - Section 16; Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 - Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(i), 11, 11(4)
Citation2014 (4) CTC 315
Judgement DateJune 10, 2014
CourtHigh Court of Madras (India)

Judgment:

R. Mala, J.

  1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 9.1.2014 passed in R.C.A. No. 385 of 2013 on the file of the learned VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai by reversing the Order and Decretal Order dated 23.7.2013 passed in M.P. No. 344 of 2013 in M.P. No. 614 of 2012 in RCOP. No. 2076 of 2012 on the file of the XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The Revision Petitioner/Landlord has filed RCOP. No. 2076 of 2012 for eviction on the ground of willful default. During the pendency of the RCOP, he filed M.P. No. 614 of 2012 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter called as the "Act"). In the said Petition, the Respondent/Tenant filed a Petition in M.P. No. 344 of 2013 under Order 19, Rules 1 & 2 r/w Sections 94(6), 141 & 151 of C.P.C. seeking permission to cross-examine the Landlord with regard to his Affidavit. However, the Revision Petitioner/Landlord without filing any objection had questioned the maintainability of the said Petition. After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides and considering the Petition filed by the Tenant, the Trial Court has dismissed the Petition against which the Respondent/Tenant filed R.C.A. No. 385 of 2013. During the pendency of the R.C.A. the Petition in M.P. No. 614 of 2012 filed under Section 11(4) of the Act has been allowed and the Tenant was directed to deposit a sum of ` 1,02,000/-. Thereafter, the R.C.A. No. 385 of 2013 was also allowed, against which the present Revision has been preferred.

  2. Challenging the impugned Order, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has put forth his argument on the following lines:

    (1) The Petition filed under Section 11(4) of the Act is only a Summary proceedings and there is no need to let in oral and documentary evidence.

    (2) Civil Procedure Code is not applicable in the Rent Control proceedings.

    (3) The Affidavit filed in support of M.P. No. 614 of 2012 in RCOP. No. 2076 under Section 11(4) of the Act is not evidence. There is no need to cross-examine the deponent.

    (4) Once the Petition in M.P. No. 614 of 2012 was allowed and the arrears of rent has been fixed, the Respondent/Tenant has not preferred any Appeal and deposited a sum of ` 1,02,000/- as per the Order passed in M.P. No. 614/2012 in RCOP. No. 2076 of 2012 on 22.10.2013, even though the said factum was brought to the notice of the Court by filing a Memo. dated 22.10.2013, the learned Judge (Rent Controller Appellate Authority), instead of dismissing the RCA as infructuous, has allowed the same.

  3. Thus, on the above grounds, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner prayed for setting aside the Order passed by the learned Trial Judge and for allowing of the Civil Revision Petition. To substantiate his argument, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the following decisions:

  4. P.N. Karuppa Gounder v. Karuppayal and others, 2013 (1) MWN (Civil) 425;

  5. Sree Ramavilas Spinning and Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. v. Virudhunagar Textiles, 2011 (1) MWN (Civil) 781;

  6. S. Karuppannan and another v. N. Chinnappan and others, 2012 (6) CTC 64;

  7. Sakunthala and others v. A. Devi, 1999 (1) MLJ 101;

  8. V.N. Vasudeva v. Seth Kirorimal Luhariwala, 1964 SCR (6) 181: 1965 AIR 440;

  9. S. Rathinammal v. Ayyavu, 1980 (1) MLJ 296; and

  10. P. Lachiram v. K.N. Kumaresan, 1979 (2) MLJ 135.

  11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon the following unreported decisions of this Court:

  12. A. Narayanasamy and others v. V. Murugesan and another, dated 24.9.2002.

  13. Arumugam v. Seethalakshmi and others, dated 1.7.2005.

  14. M. Paul Raj v. N. Paramasivam and another, C.R.P. (NPD) MD. No. 154 of 2009 dated 21.4.2009.

  15. Resisting the same, the learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that he has paid ` 5,00,000/- as security deposit and that there was dispute in respect of the rent. To clarify the same, there is a need to cross-examine the Landlord. Further, in the RCOP proceedings, the Tenant is entitled to cross-examine the Landlord. This factum has not been considered by the Trial Court and hence, in order to give a fair opportunity to the Tenant and to comply with the Principles of Natural Justice, the RCA in R.C.A. No. 385 of 2013 has been allowed. So, the learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that there is no necessity to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court and he prayed for the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. To substantiate his argument, he relied upon the following Acts and Rules.

  16. Section 4 of Rule 6 of 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

  17. Legal Theory (Jurisprudence).

  18. Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu General Clauses Act, 1891.

  19. Section 16 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.

  20. The learned Counsel for the Respondent also relied upon the following decisions:

  21. The Managing Director (Mig) v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, AIR 1973 SC 76;

  22. Jahoran v. Kalyanmal and others, AIR 2004 Raj. 324;

  23. Lookman v. Indra Singh, RLW 2003 (2) Raj. 1196; and

  24. Doshi Dei and others v. Rama Routa and others, AIR 1985 Ori. 77.

  25. Considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the entire materials available on record.

  26. Now this Court has to decide whether non-filing of Counter in M.P. No. 344 of 2013 is a ground for allowing the said Petition?

    The admitted facts are as follows. The Revision Petitioner/Landlord has filed the RCOP. No. 2076 of 2012 for eviction on the ground of willful default under Sections 10(2)(i) & 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act 18 of 1960. In that it was specifically stated that at the time of inception of the tenancy, the Respondent has paid refundable interest free deposit of 50,000 and the Respondent accepted and paid a rent of ` 8,000/- per month. Subsequently, the rent was enhanced to ` 8,500/- from March 2012. However, from the month of April 2012, the Respondent/Tenant has defaulted in payment of the rent. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the Revision Petitioner/Landlord has Issued Notice dated 4.6.2012 viz., Ex. B1, before filing the RCOP Petition. The Respondent/Tenant issued a reply dated 19.6.2012, viz., Ex. B2, wherein it was stated that "` 5,00,000/- has been paid towards lease amount for a period of five years and a further sum of ` 50,000/- has been paid towards EB deposit and that both the amounts are refundable without interest at the time of vacating the house, which has been mutually agreed by both of us. After receipt of the Reply dated 19.6.2012, the Revision Petitioner/Landlord issued a rejoinder dated 22.6.2012, wherein it was stated that "he had received only a sum of ` 50,000/- as Security Deposit and had also issued a written Receipt for the same". Thereafter, the Respondent/Tenant sent a reply to the rejoinder on 6.7.2012 wherein he has reiterated his earlier reply. Admittedly, there was no reply for the same from the Revision Petitioner/Landlord. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/Landlord also submits that he has not sent any reply. I am of the view that the documents viz., Ex. B1 to Ex. B4 are irrelevant for the disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition.

  27. It is pertinent to note that the Landlord had filed RCOP on the ground of willful default and during the pendency of the RCOP, he filed a Petition in M.P. No. 614 of 2012 under Section 11(4) of the Act. Instead of filing Counter in the said Petition, the Respondent/Tenant filed an Application in M.P. No. 344 of 2013 under Order 19, Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 94(6), 141 & 151 of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
1 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT