Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1712 (MAD)

Babu v. Duraisamy Iyengar

2012-04-03

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 10.11.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kancheepuram in E.A.No.135 of 2011 in E.P.No.50 of 2010 in RCOP No.13 of 1998, this civil revision petition has been focussed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, absolutely necessary and relevant for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The respondent, who got the eviction order in the Rent control proceedings as against the revision petitioner, filed E.P.No.50 of 2010. While so, E.A.No.135 of 2011 was filed by the revision petitioner/judgment debtor herein to get stay of the Execution proceedings, pending disposal of the petition filed to get the delay in filing the application to get the RCA restored on the file of the learned Rent control Appellate Authority, as the Rent Control Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal filed by the revision petitioner herein for default. The delay was 1992 days, in other words, it comes to nearly six years. The Execution Court considering all these facts dismissed the E.A seeking stay of the Execution Proceedings; as against which, this revision has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that if delivery is effected pursuant to the eviction order passed by the Rent controller, which is under the anvil of the Appellate Authority, certainly, the revision petitioner/tenant would be put to prejudice and discomfiture as obtaining re-delivery is an extra ordinary remedy, which cannot be foreseen positively. 5. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder would vehemently oppose this revision on the ground that absolutely there is no reason much less valid reason for condoning the delay of nearly 1992 days in getting the RCA restored and that too, when law contemplates that within 15 days, the appeal should be filed as against the Rent Controller's order. 6. The underlying principle behind Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1960 is a wholesome procedure; that in summary proceedings, there should not be unnecessary delay. Here, ever since 2000, so to say, the year, in which the eviction order was passed, the respondent/landlord has been struggling to obtain delivery and whereas the revision petitioner virtually dilly dallied and shilly-shallied with the matter and he deserves no sympathetic view of this court. 7. Here, ever since 2000, so to say, the year, in which the eviction order was passed, the respondent/landlord has been struggling to obtain delivery and whereas the revision petitioner virtually dilly dallied and shilly-shallied with the matter and he deserves no sympathetic view of this court. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the court below in rejecting the prayer for stay by the revision petitioner? 8. Considering the pro et contra, I am of the considered view that there is enormous delay on the part of the revision petitioner/tenant in approaching the Rent Control Appellate Authority in getting the appeal restored. No doubt, the said application is pending and I do not want to comment upon that because the Appellate Authority has to apply its mind and he should take a decision whether the delay could be condoned in filing the application to get the appeal restored. However, when he seeks for stay, this court incidentally has to observe that he should have been vigilant enough in protecting his interest by being diligent. 9. I recollect and call up the maxim - Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt The laws aid the vigilant, not those who sleep. 10. In this case, because of the enormous delay, he landed himself in a can of worms or bucket of worms and for that the other side cannot be blamed. No doubt, if no stay is granted, there is possibility of delivery being effected and in the event of the revision petitioner succeeding in the appeal, he has to ask for re-delivery, which would also be somewhat cumbersome. Even then, for all these discomfitures the respondent/landlord cannot be blamed. The court below correctly pointed out the order of the Court has to be executed. 11. I recollect and call-up the maxim -Parum est latam esse sententiam, nisi mandetur execution - It is not enough that judgment has been given, if it is not committed to execution. 12. Keeping the aforesaid maxim in mind alone, the court passed the order. It is for the revision petitioner to press for the appeal, pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and see that the matter is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. 12. Keeping the aforesaid maxim in mind alone, the court passed the order. It is for the revision petitioner to press for the appeal, pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority and see that the matter is disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Over and above that the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that there is no Appellate Authority now functioning in that area, viz., Kancheepuram. I am of the considered view that there must be some officer-in-charge of it and he should take into account the seriousness and urgency of the matter and take up the application concerned and dispose it of within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. As such, I could see no merit in this revision. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.