Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 5202 (MAD)

Ameena Beevi v. M. Perumal

2010-11-30

V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

body2010
Judgment :- This Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 06.07.2010 passed in M.P.No.343 of 2009 in R.C.A.No.211 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court at Chennai, in R.C.O.P.No.1972 of 2008 on the file of the XII Small Causes Court at Chennai. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his argument that the lower Court was not correct in ordering to deposit a sum of Rs.1,09,700/- into the credit of RCOP, which is contrary to the pleadings and actual facts. He would further submit in his argument that he had deposited the said sum, in order to avoid complications in the proceedings and has approached this Court by the way of revision. He would further submit in his argument that the admitted case of the respondents would be that the petitioner issued receipts towards monthly rent for a sum of Rs.1,000/- only and therefore it may not be possible to hold that the monthly rent payable is Rs.2,500/-, as admitted by parties. He would therefore request the Court to set aside the order passed by the lower Court and to allow the revision. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit in his argument that the actual rent payable for the monthly rent is Rs.2,500/- but, the learned Rent Controller has come to a conclusion that the rent payable is at Rs.1,000/- only per month, however, the same has to be decided in the Rent Control Appeal. He would further submit in his argument that the lower Court had come to a conclusion in C.M.P.No.343 of 2009, that the rent payable for the premises was at Rs.2,500/- per month from January 2005 to August 2008, for forty six months and had directed the petitioner to deposit the same and therefore there is no flaw in it. He would also submit in his argument that the revision may be dismissed accordingly and suitable directions may be issued to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for an expeditious disposal of the appeal. 5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. Admittedly, the monthly rent was found to be Rs.1,000/-per month, by the learned Rent Controller. The appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, dated 08.04.2009. 5. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side. Admittedly, the monthly rent was found to be Rs.1,000/-per month, by the learned Rent Controller. The appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, dated 08.04.2009. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondents filed an application in C.M.P.No.343 of 2009, under Section 11(4) of the said Act., and in the said enquiry, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has come to a conclusion that the arrears payable by the petitioner to the respondents was at Rs.2,500/- per month and accordingly, it was directed to pay the admitted arrears. Now, the challenge is made against the said finding of the Appellate Authority. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.1,09,700/-, as per the direction of the lower Court on 20.07.2010, without prejudice to his case in order to avoid any complication of passing consequential orders of eviction. 6. Now, the point for consideration before this Court is, whether the quantum of monthly rent payable in between parties to the tenancy would be either Rs.1000/- or Rs.2,500/-. If the same is decided by this Court, it would be amounting to the disposal of the main rent control appeal itself. However, it has to be decided only by the Rent Control Appellate Authority during the hearing of the full-fledged arguments in the appeal. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to leave it and is to be decided by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. At the same time, it has to be ordered that the amount deposited at Rs.1,09,700/- by the petitioner before Rent Controller, as per the directions of the lower Court shall not be withdrawn by any of the parties till the disposal of the Rent Control Appeal. Therefore, it has also become necessary for this Court to give a direction to the lower Court to expeditiously dispose the Rent Control Appeal, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (lower Court) shall not be influenced by the order of this Court in disposing the revision and it has come to an independent conclusion, based on evidence in respect of the quantum of rent. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this revision petition is disposed of. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (lower Court) shall not be influenced by the order of this Court in disposing the revision and it has come to an independent conclusion, based on evidence in respect of the quantum of rent. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this revision petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.