Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3716 (MAD)

G. v. Indumathi VS R. Sasikumari

2008-10-14

S.RAJESWARAN

body2008
Judgment :- The tenant in R.C.O.P.No.788 of 2006 is the revision petitioner. R.C.O.P.No.788 of 2006 has been filed by the respondent/landlord against the petitioner herein/tenant and another under Sections 10(2)(i),10(2)(vi) and 10(3)(c) of Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 for eviction. Counter statement has been filed by both the respondents in the RCOP and the said rent control original petition is being contested. Pending R.C.O.P. the revision petitioner filed M.P.No.13 of 2008 under Rule 28(2) of Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1974 to issue subpoena to the Assistant Revenue Officer, Corporation Division No.119, directing to produce the corporation extract of the property tax for the premises No.45/54 Thirumalai Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. The said petition was resisted by the respondent/landlord by filing a counter. The Rent Controller by order dated 2. 2008 dismissed the petition. As against that order an appeal in R.C.A.No.144 of 2008 was preferred by the petitioner/tenant before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the rent controller. Aggrieved by the said order, the above revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have also gone through the documents filed in support of his submissions. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rent control proceedings were initiated by the respondent/landlord against the petitioner/tenant for eviction on the ground of willful default, ceasing to occupy and for additional accommodation. The petitioner/tenant has filed a petition in M.P.No.13 of 2008 to issue subpoena to the Assistant Revenue Officer, Corporation Division No.119 to produce the Corporation Extract of the property tax for the premises No.45/54 Thirumalai Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. The said document would be the relevant document for deciding the adjudication viz., the exact rent payable by the tenant/petitioner herein. Moreover, the quantum of rent sought for by the respondent/landlord would be decided by calling for the document of the property tax submitted by them before the Corporation. The learned counsel further adds that Ex A6 the outdated tenancy agreement of the year 1991 would be disproved by the document being sought for. According to him, both the Courts below viz., the rent Controller as well as the rent control appellate authority have committed grave error in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/tenant. The learned counsel further adds that Ex A6 the outdated tenancy agreement of the year 1991 would be disproved by the document being sought for. According to him, both the Courts below viz., the rent Controller as well as the rent control appellate authority have committed grave error in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/tenant. Hence he prays for interference by this Court by setting aside the order passed by the rent control appellate authority confirming the order passed by the rent controller. 4. I am unable to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.R.C.O.P.No.788 of 2006 has been filed by the respondent/landlord against the petitioner/tenant for filed by the respondent/landlord against the petitioner/tenant for eviction on the ground of wilful default, ceasing to occupy, and for additional accommodation. The document viz., property tax payable by the respondent/landlord to the Corporation which is being sought for as a document to be brought before the Court below is not germane to the issue in hand. Moreover, the property tax document submitted by the landlord is absolutely not necessary for deciding the issue in the rent control proceedings. Therefore, in my opinion, the rent controller as well as the rent control appellate authority have rightly dismissed the petition which does not warrant any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 5. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is also dismissed.