Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 464 (MAD)

N. Mani v. M. Sakunthala Ammal

2002-06-13

A.S.VENKATACHALA MOORTHY

body2002
ORDER: The revision has been filed against the order dated 16.11.2001 in I.A. No.32 of 2001 in R.C.O.P. No.2 of 2000 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Arani, dismissing an application filed under Sec.10, C.P.C. to stay all further proceedings in R.C.O.P. No.2 of 2000 pending before the Sub Court, Arani. 2. The petitioner is a tenant in respect of the demised property. The claim of the respondent is that she purchased the property from the petitioner under a registered sale deed on 12.10.1998 for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,90,000 After so purchasing the respondent filed R.C.O.P. No.2 of 2000 before the Rent Controller, viz., Principal District Munsif, Arani for eviction on the ground of wilful default. While that was pending, the petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S. No.216 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Arani against the respondent herein, praying the Court to set aside the sale deed dated 12.10.1998 as sham and nominal and further for restraining the respondent by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The above facts are admitted. 3. The petitioner has come forward to file an application I.A. No.32 of 2001 in R.C.O.P. No.2 of 2000 before the Rent Controller, Arani under Sec.10, C.P.C. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner has started that he has executed only a sham and nominal document in favour of the respondent and that he never handed over possession of the property even after the said document. It is also claimed that since he has filed a suit O.S. No.216 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court, Arani to set aside the sale deed, dated 12.10.1998, the proceedings before the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No.2 of 2000 has to be stayed. 4. The respondent herein resisted the said application inter alia contending that Sec.10, C.P.C. would not apply and that apart, R.C.O.P. came to be filed first. 5. The Rent Controller, Arani dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and it is against that, the present C.R.P. has been filed. 6. The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 itself does not contain any provisions regarding application of Civil Procedure Code and in fact the provisions of the Act seem to be self-contained. 5. The Rent Controller, Arani dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and it is against that, the present C.R.P. has been filed. 6. The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 itself does not contain any provisions regarding application of Civil Procedure Code and in fact the provisions of the Act seem to be self-contained. The Rent Court is not Civil Court and Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to Rent Court. The Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will not apply, except to the extent provided by the Act itself. Generally therefore, there is exclusion of application of Code of Civil Procedure and where it is either made applicable or even intended to apply, provision is made to that effect. 7. Even according to Sec.10, C.P.C., to stay a suit certain conclusion have to be satisfied which would include both the proceedings pending in a Court must be identical and further if the conditions were satisfied, only the latter proceedings can be stayed and not the former. Obviously, these two conditions are not satisfied. The lower Court is quite right in dismissing I.A. No.32 of 2001 in R.C.O.P. No.2 of 2000. 8. In this view of the matter, there are no merits in the C.R.P. and it is dismissed. Consequently, connected C.M.P. is also dismissed. No costs.