Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 872 (MAD)

A. S. M. Anwar Batha v. S. P. Rajagopal

2002-08-22

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

body2002
Judgment :- These Revisions have been preferred against the order of the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes made in M.P.Nos.3559 & 3561 of 2002 in Distress Application No.37 of 2002 and M.P.Nos.3560 & 3562 of 2002 in Distress Application No.40 of 2002 respectively, in and by which, while allowing the M.Ps., distraint warrants issued earlier came to be vacated and as a consequence of which, the distrained articles were directed to be released forthwith. 2. Mr.B.S.Sundaramoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would vehemently contend that by virtue of Section 60 of the Presidency of Small Causes Act, in order to entertain the application to discharge/suspend the distraint warrant issued under Section 53 of the Act, the application should have been filed within five days from the date of seizure and in such circumstances, the application itself having been filed beyond the prescribed time limit, the same was liable to be rejected in limine. The learned counsel would further contend that the Court below having held that the rental arrears were in dispute and that the same was not adjudicated upon earlier, failed to proceed further with the adjudication of the said issue, instead proceeded to discharge the very distraint warrant itself, which action is contrary to the jurisdiction vested in it. 3. I am not convinced with either of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the seizure of the articles was stated to have been made on 3-7-2002 and the application under Section 60 came to be filed on 8-7-2002. The Court below has found as a matter of fact that the application was filed within 5 days time and thereby the maintainability of the application under Section 60 of the Act on the ground of limitation was beyond controversy and therefore, there was no scope for countenancing the said stand of the petitioner in order to interfere with the order impugned herein. 4. 4. As regards the question, namely, whether the arrears of rent were disputed by the respondent herein, which is purely a question of fact and which requires an adjudication in order to maintain the distraint application under Section 53 of the Act, on a perusal of the order of the Court below, I find that there is a detailed discussion as to the claim made by the petitioner with regard to the rental arrears for the period of January 2000 to November 2000 and December 2000 to October 2001 in all for a total sum of Rs.66,000/-, that there were documents in support of the stand of the respondent disputing the very claim made by the petitioner, that there were circumstances and material evidence to show that the arrears of rent claimed by the petitioner needed a detailed investigation by way of adjudication and that no valid adjudication had taken place prior to the filing of the application under Section 53 of the Act before the appropriate forum. In fact, the question as to whether such an adjudication can be ventured by the Chief Judge himself came up for consideration and this Court in the Judgment reported in 1988(1) MLJ 122 (SADHANANDAN versus LEELAVATHY), has held as under in para 6. "6. .... Thus it is clear that the proceedings under Chap.VIII of the Act are sui generis and are of the nature of an execution proceedings to recover arrears of rent on accepted facts. Further, under Chap.VIII of the Act, the Court does not adjudicate upon the liability to pay rent nor on the question of rent payable. If these are disputed the court ceases to have jurisdiction over the matter. As such, it cannot be said that in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Sec.53, the Court of Small Causes exercises a jurisdiction beyond its pecuniary limits prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. Thus the proceedings under Chap.VIII of the Act are special proceedings in the nature of execution. ....." 5. Therefore, there was no scope for the Court below to proceed further with the adjudication of the dispute relating to payment of arrears by the respondent in these proceedings raised under Section 53 itself, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the next contention of the petitioner cannot also be accepted. ....." 5. Therefore, there was no scope for the Court below to proceed further with the adjudication of the dispute relating to payment of arrears by the respondent in these proceedings raised under Section 53 itself, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the next contention of the petitioner cannot also be accepted. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the very application preferred by the petitioner under Section 53 of the Act being not maintainable in law, the Court below was fully justified in having allowed the present M.Ps. preferred by the petitioner in M.P.Nos.3559 & 3561 of 2002 in Distress Application No.37 of 2002 and M.P.Nos.3560 & 3562 of 2002 in Distress Application No.40 of 2002. There is therefore no scope for entertaining these revisions. The Revisions, therefore, fail and the same are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are closed.