Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2706 (MAD)

T. Vijayakumar v. R. Chandra

2010-07-05

G.RAJASURIA

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the VII Small Causes Court (Appellate Authority) in M.P.No.475 of 2008 in RCA No.73 of 2007, this civil revision petition is focussed at the instance of the tenant. 2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The respondent herein filed the R.C.O.P.No.1863 of 2004 as against the revision petitioner herein citing him as the tenant on the ground of wilful default in paying the rent. The revision petitioner herein raised the contention that there was no landlord and tenant relationship at all between the parties in that matter. Whereupon the Rent Controller decided the matter as against the revision petitioner and as against which RCA/No.73 of 2007 was filed and the same is pending. (ii) While so, the respondent herein filed the application M.P.No.475 of 2008 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act seeking a direction to the revision petitioner to deposit the accrued arrears. (iii) Whereupon the appellate authority passed the order directing the revision petitioner/tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.46,000/- into the Court to the credit of RCA No.73/07. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would be to the effect that the appellate authority, without actually considering the contentions in the appeal, simply directed the revision petitioner/tenant to deposit the rent in the application filed under Section 11(4) of the Act. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that the very appeal itself is as against the finding of the rent controller that there was landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. But in this case, the appellate authority while dealing with M.P.No.475 of 2008 filed under Section 11(4)(a) virtually decided the main issue itself, which is not tenable as per law. 5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady would submit that there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the appellate authority, as there are huge arrears to be paid by the revision petitioner/tenant. 6. 5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlady would submit that there is nothing wrong in the order passed by the appellate authority, as there are huge arrears to be paid by the revision petitioner/tenant. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the appellate authority in the application filed under Section 11(4) of the Act? 7. A resume of facts absolutely necessary for deciding this case would run thus: (i) The appellate authority, no doubt, in my opinion correctly passed the order in the stay petition M.P.No.88 of 2007 on 12.2.2007 to the effect that the revision petitioner herein should deposit Rs.21,520/- in Court as a condition for availing the stay. But that was not adhered to. The appellate authority, at the time of granting stay, without deciding the merit of the appeal could tentatively pass such orders. However, the revision petitioner herein did not comply with the said order and the stay also got vacated. (ii) Subsequently the respondent herein did choose to file an application under Section 11(4) of the Act. The scope of it is somewhat different from the said stay application. Unless there is some ex facie landlord and tenant relationship between the parties concerned, the question of invoking Section 11(4) of the Act may not arise. 8. The learned counsel for revision petitioner would submit that a time frame may be fixed for disposal of the appeal itself, so that the matter would come to an end. 9. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the order dated 17.12.2008 passed by the appellate authority in M.P.No.475 of 2008 is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to dispose of the appeal within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.