Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1213 (MAD)

P. Meenakshiammal v. G. Muralidharan

2004-09-21

V.KANAGARAJ

body2004
Judgment :- Common Order: Both the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the common judgment and decree dated 11.3.2003 respectively rendered in R.C.A.Nos.329 and 335 of 2001 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Judge), Chennai thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 18.4.2001 respectively made in C.M.P.No.60 of 1999 and M.P.No.800 of 2000 in R.E.P.No.410 of 1998 in R.C.O.P.No.88 of 1998 by the Court of Rent Controller (XVI Small Causes Judge), Chennai. 2. Tracing the history of the above Civil Revisions having come to be filed, what comes to be known is that the petitioner herein is the landlady who filed R.C.O.P.No.88 of 1998 for eviction of the respondent therein for wilful default on the ground that originally one Mr.Kanniappan was the tenant of the tenanted premises and he was carrying on the business of blacksmith; that on his death, his wife claiming to be associated with the business of her husband asserted right to continue in occupation of the tenanted premises and offered to pay rent; that the petitioner herein refused to receive the rent and to recognize her position as tenant upon which she filed R.C.O.P.No.982 of 1992 for deposit of rents; that the said R.C.O.P. was allowed by an order dated 15.3.1994 wherein the tenant was directed to deposit the rent into court directly; that the tenant defaulted in the payment of rents for the months of July and August 1996 and filed M.P.No.648 of 1996 for condoning the delay in depositing the rent and offered to deposit the rent; that the said miscellaneous petition was dismissed on 14.7.1997. 3. 3. It further comes to be known that since the tenant had wilfully defaulted in the payment of rent, the petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.88 of 1998 for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent; that notices were sent to the tenant through court as well as the bailiff and were returned as "Door locked"; that publication was effected in Makkal Kural; that since the respondent failed to appear even after paper publication, ex-parte order was passed on 26.6.1998 in the R.C.O.P. directing eviction of the tenant, further directing the tenant to hand over possession of the demised premises within a period of three months; that after three months of passing of the ex-parte order, the petitioner herein preferred E.P.No.410 of 1998 for executing the order passed by the learned Rent Controller; that in the Execution Petition, notices were sent through the court to the tenanted premises where the tenant was allegedly carrying on the business of her deceased husband; that the said notice was returned with the same endorsement "Door locked"; that pursuant to this, a notice was once again served through substituted service; that since the tenant failed to appear either in person or through a pleader, delivery orders were passed in the Execution Petition on 7.1.1999 ordering delivery of possession of the premises to the petitioner; that pursuant to this the authorised person of the petitioner along with the bailiff took possession of the tenanted premises on 13.1.1999. 4. 4. It further comes to be known that pursuant to the delivery of possession, the tenant had filed M.P.No.60 of 1999 and M.P.No.800 of 2000 in E.P.No.410 of 1998 respectively praying to set aside the ex-parte orders dated 26.6.1998 and 7.1.1999 and for re-delivery of possession on the ground that no notice was served on her either in the R.C.O.P. or in the execution petition and that she came to know about the proceedings only after the bailiff came to take possession of the tenanted premises; that the Rent Controller by a common order dated 18.4.2001 dismissed both the petitions on the ground that when the bailiff went to the petition premises, the tenant's grandson, the respondent herein was present and without any resistance had handed over the possession, against which the tenant had preferred R.C.A.No.329 of 2001 and R.C.A.No.335 of 2001; that the Rent Control Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 11.3.2003 set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller on the ground that the petitioner herein had committed fraud by taking notice to an address different from that of the tenanted premises and while setting aside the exparte orders passed both in the RCOP and the Execution Petition has directed the Rent Controller to dispose of the R.C.O.P. within two months. It is only testifying the judgment and decree of the learned Rent Controller Appellate Authority, the petitioner herein has come forward to file both the above Civil Revision Petitions on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision. 5. A careful perusal of the entire materials placed on record in the light of the submissions of both sides, would reveal that challenging the exparte orders passed both in the RCOP and the execution petition filed therein, the tenant has taken out the present proceedings. It is seen from the records that the landlady has taken the notices in the RCOP and the Execution Petition to an address which is different from the tenanted premises, where the tenant is residing and has obtained the exparte order of eviction and delivery of possession. Further more, it is a well settled law now that no party should be denied of opportunity to contest the case wherein their substantial rights are involved. Further more, it is a well settled law now that no party should be denied of opportunity to contest the case wherein their substantial rights are involved. While the Rent Controller has lost sight of the facts of the case and the settled propositions of law on the subject the Rent Control Appellate Authority, having gone into the matter in depth and appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in the manner required by law and applying the said legal proposition has arrived at the conclusion thereby setting aside the exparte orders passed both in the RCOP and in the Execution Petition. 6. The stand taken by the revision petitioner that the respondent was very well present when the possession was taken by the landlady cannot be a ground to deny the opportunity for the tenant to contest the case particularly when it is the case of the tenant that only when the bailiff came to take possession of the tenanted premises, she was given to understand the exparte order obtained by the landlady. 7. Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has got every reason to order setting aside the exparte orders and this Court is not able to find any error apparent on the face of the common judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and therefore this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well considered and merited decision rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and both the above Civil Revision Petitions are liable only to be set aside and hence the following order: In result, (i) both the above Civil Revision Petitions do not merit acceptance and they become liable only to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. (ii) The common judgment and decrees dated 11.3.2003 respectively rendered in R.C.A.Nos.329 and 335 of 2001 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Judge), Chennai thereby reversing the fair and decretal orders dated 18.4.2001 respectively made in C.M.P.No.60 of 1999 and M.P.No.800 of 2000 in R.E.P.No.410 of 1998 in R.C.O.P.No.88 of 1998 by the Rent Controller (XVI Small Causes Judge), Chennai is hereby confirmed. (iii) The Rent Controller is directed to comply with the direction issued by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in disposing of the R.C.O.P. on merits and in accordance with law at the earliest. (iii) The Rent Controller is directed to comply with the direction issued by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in disposing of the R.C.O.P. on merits and in accordance with law at the earliest. However, in the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.5605 and 5606 of 2004 are also dismissed.