Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 100 (MAD)

T. Sarojini & Others v. Ruby Christy

2009-01-09

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 31.01.2008 passed by the learned VII Small Causes Judge, Chennai in R.C.A.No.686 of 2007, confirming the order and decreetal order dated 110. 2007 made in M.P.No.365 of 2007 in RCOP No.92 of 2007 on the file of the XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A summarization and summation of the case of the petitioners as stood exposited from the records could be portrayed thus: The petitioners herein have been cited as tenants in R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2007, which was filed by the respondent for fixation of fair rent. The petitioners herein filed M.P.No.365 of 2007 before the Rent Controller for the dismissal of the R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2007 on the ground that in the earlier R.C.O.P.No.1351 of 2003 the Court held that there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties as against which R.C.A. was been filed before the appellate authority concerned and it pending; while so without any rhyme or reason the present R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2007 was filed for fixation of fair rent; however M.P.No.365 of 2007 was dismissed by the lower Court as against which R.C.A.686 of 2007 was filed and the same also was dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of both the Courts below, this revision has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would develop his argument to the effect that once there is an adjudication in R.C.O.P.No.1351 of 2003, that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, it is not open for the respondent herein to file R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2007. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners herein. But the fact remains that as against the previous order in R.C.O.P.No.1351 of 2003, R.C.A.No.714 of 2006 is pending before the appellate authority concerned. Only after adjudication, finality could be achieved in those proceedings and if at all the appeal is allowed, the respondent would have the right to proceed with R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2007 which is one for fixation for fair rent. The learned counsel for the petitioners herein would submit that as of now R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2007 is having no legs to stand and accordingly it has to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners herein would submit that as of now R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2007 is having no legs to stand and accordingly it has to be dismissed. 5. I am of the considered opinion that even though there is substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, nonetheless I am of the view that R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2007 can be ordered to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the earlier R.C.A.No.714 of 2006 pending before the appellate authority. If in the R.C.A.714 of 2006, order of the Rent Controller is confirmed, then R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2007 shall automatically stand dismissed as otherwise the respondent shall be entitled to prosecute further the R.C.O.P.No.92 of 2007. Accordingly, this petition is ordered. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.