Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3095 (MAD)

(Mrs. ) Snehalateha Elangovan v. S. Shanmugam

2010-07-27

G.RAJASURIA

body2010
Judgment :- This civil revision petition is filed seeking a direction to the VII Small Causes Court(Rent Control Appellate Authority) Chennai to dispose of the RCA No.138 of 2010 on merits, within a time frame. 2. The short facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: (i) The revision petitioner, being a landlady, filed the RCOP No.1345 of 2009 and ultimately obtained the order of eviction on the ground of wilful detault in paying rent and also on the ground of owners occupation. During the pendency of the RCOP, application No.386 of 2009 was filed by the revision petition/landlady under Section 11 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the same was ordered by the Rent Controller. (ii) However, it appears, there was non-compliance with the said order. Whereupon eviction was also ordered. As against the said order, two RCAs were filed by the respondent/tenant and now they are pending. 3. The grievance of the revision petitioner/landlady is that both the RCAs were argued by her, however, the respondent/tenant is taking time. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/landlady also would submit that the landlady being a senior citizen is expecting speedy disposal of the matter. 5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent/tenant would echo the cri de coeur of the tenant to the effect that pendente lite the tenant was dispossessed and he is left high and dry and in such a case the revision petitioner/landlady is projecting herself as though there was no wrong on her part, whereas she is facing contempt proceedings before the Court and the RCAs are only of the year 2010. 6. Considering the pro et contra, I am of the view that simply because the RCAs are of the year 2010 there is no mandatory rule that several years should be taken by the tenant to argue the appeals. It is open for the tenant to put forth his case in the matter pending in the civil Court and there is no justification for him to refrain from arguing the appeals before the appellate authority under the Act. Hence, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, I would like to direct the the VII Small Causes Court to dispose of the appeals on or before 15.9.2010 and accordingly it is ordered. Hence, without expressing anything on the merits of the matter, I would like to direct the the VII Small Causes Court to dispose of the appeals on or before 15.9.2010 and accordingly it is ordered. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.