Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4341 (MAD)

S. Srinivasan v. G. D. Selvaraj

2011-10-28

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
JUDGMENT : 1. The Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.3825 of 2011 is filed challenging the Order and Decretal Order dated 25.8.2011 passed in I.A.No.97 of 2011 in R.C.A.No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge's Court), Gobichettipalayam. 2. The Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.3826 of 2011 is filed challenging the Order and Decretal Order dated 25.8.2011 passed in I.A.No.98 of 2011 in R.C.A.No.5 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge's Court), Gobichettipalayam. 3. The Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.3827 of 2011 is filed challenging the Order and Decretal Order dated 25.8.2011 passed in I.A.No.99 of 2011 in R.C.A.No.10 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge's Court), Gobichettipalayam. 4. The Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.3828 of 2011 is filed challenging the Order and Decretal Order dated 25.8.2011 passed in I.A.No.100 of 2011 in R.C.A.No.11 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge's Court), Gobichettipalayam. 5. The respondent/landlord is common in all cases and the relief sought for in all the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same. By consent, all the Civil Revision Petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 6. The respondent/landlord filed R.C.O.P.Nos.3, 4, 5 and 7 of 2008 before the Rent Control Court, Gobichettipalayam seeking eviction of the revision petitioners/tenants on the following three grounds:- (i) Demolition and reconstruction, (ii) Own use and occupation and (iii) Additional accommodation. In the said proceedings the two grounds, (ii) and (iii) above, namely, own use and occupation and additional accommodation, were not pressed. The only plea that was canvassed was for demolition and reconstruction. This contention of the respondent/landlord was accepted by the learned Rent Controller and the Rent Control Original Petitions came to be allowed. Eviction was ordered in all the four Rent Control Original Petitions. 7. Challenging the eviction order, the revision petitioners/tenants filed appeals R.C.A.Nos.4, 5, 10 and 11 of 2011. Pending the Rent Control Appeals, I.A.Nos.97, 98, 99 and 100 of 2011 have been filed by the revision petitioners/tenants to call for records from the bank to prove validity of the fixed deposit which was one of the reasons for the learned Rent Controller to allow the Rent Control Original Petitions accepting landlord's plea for demolition and reconstruction. 8. Pending the Rent Control Appeals, I.A.Nos.97, 98, 99 and 100 of 2011 have been filed by the revision petitioners/tenants to call for records from the bank to prove validity of the fixed deposit which was one of the reasons for the learned Rent Controller to allow the Rent Control Original Petitions accepting landlord's plea for demolition and reconstruction. 8. The respondent/landlord produced bank related records before the Rent Controller to prove that the Fixed Deposits have been renewed. In the Rent Control Appeals considering the documents already available on record and the records produced to show subsistence of the deposit, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the applications so as to consider the appeals on merits. Challenging the same, the revision petitions have been filed. 9. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in his order has stated that the respondent/landlord had produced a Fixed Deposit Receipt before the learned Rent Controller to show his means for the purpose of establishing his plea for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. The Appellate Authority was of the view that the appeals were posted for arguments for several hearings from 7.4.2011 till 25.8.2011, but the revision petitioners/tenants did not file any application earlier and the applications have been filed only at the time when the matters were posted for arguments on behalf of the respondent/landlord. The revision petitioners/tenants have not taken steps to prove that the Fixed Deposit have been withdrawn by the respondent/landlord. The applications filed at the fag end of the appeal proceedings is not bona fide. The Appellate Court further took into account the statement of accounts pertaining to the term deposits and the proof of renewal of the fixed deposit upto the year 2012. The Appellate Court, in the Interlocutory Applications, was of the view that the fixed deposit receipt and the statement of accounts in respect of term deposits filed before the Rent Controller is relevant for considering the appeals. Therefore, it held that there is no need to file additional documents at every stage of the proceedings. Holding that the attempts made by the revision petitioners/tenants is only to stall the proceedings, the applications were dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants contended that the renewed Fixed Deposit Receipts are not available before the Appellate Authority and a specific ground has been raised in the appeal. 11. Holding that the attempts made by the revision petitioners/tenants is only to stall the proceedings, the applications were dismissed. 10. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/tenants contended that the renewed Fixed Deposit Receipts are not available before the Appellate Authority and a specific ground has been raised in the appeal. 11. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord contends that the Fixed Deposit Receipts have been renewed and even before the Rent Controller sufficient means has been established. The revision petitioners/tenants have to establish in appeals that the order of the Rent Controller is bad. He cannot fish for information to support his case. The respondent/landlord will oppose the appeals on merits. The present Interlocutory Applications filed are only to prolong the litigation. He also states that the appeals are ripe for hearing and the Appellate Court can be directed to dispose of the appeals considering the objections raised by the revision petitioners/tenants as well as the respondent/landlord on its own merits. 12. Considering the rival pleas, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders under challenge as there is no necessity to get the bank documents to enable the revision petitioners/tenants to prove their case in appeal. The respondent/landlord has proved before the Rent Control Authority on the basis of the documents that he has got sufficient means. That order has to be tested in the appeals. If the respondent/landlord has established his means before the learned Rent Controller it is for the revision petitioners/tenants to prove that the order in appeals is improper, contrary to law and facts and therefore, requires to be set aside. The application filed to produce further document to prove the case in appeals is totally unacceptable. This Court finds no error in the order under challenge and the Civil Revision petitions are misconceived and lacks bona fide. The Appellate Authority is, however, directed to dispose of the appeals on their own merits considering the objections raised by the revision petitioners/tenants and also after hearing the respondent/landlord. The Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible, preferably, on or before 21.12.2011. 13. In the result, the orders of the Appellate Authority are confirmed. The Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of as above. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.