Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2515 (MAD)

R. Balasubramanian v. M. K. Vasu

2012-06-19

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the judgement and decrees dated 13.12.2011 passed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in R.C.A.Nos.18 & 19 of 2010 confirming the order dated 24.2.2009 passed by the Rent Controller & Revenue Divisional Officer, Coimbatore, in Na.Ka.Nos.3582/2005/A2 & Na.Ka.No.11414/2005/A2, these civil revision petitions are filed. 2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts could be set out in a few broad strokes thus: (i) The tenant by name M.K. Vasu and another tenant by name M.K. Balan – the first respondent herein in both the revisions, filed two RCOPs before the authorised officer, under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), on the ground that there was some title dispute between the respondents therein concerned and that they could not pay specifically to a particular individual, the rent. (ii) Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the authorised officer passed the order directing the tenants to deposit the rent with him. (iii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said orders, R. Balasubramanian-the revision petitioner herein in both the revisions, filed the appeals RCA.Nos.18 & 19 of 2010, invoking Section 23(1)(b) of the Act, which in my opinion were not tenable, as it is quite obvious that as against the proceedings of the authorised officer, no appeal under Section 23(1)(b) of the Act is maintainable. (iv) The appellate authority dismissed the appeals with the observation that the tenants have to report to the Rent Controller the said factum of they having deposited the rent with the authorised officer, strictly as per Section 9(3) of the Act. 3. Inveighing the said judgement and decrees of the appellate authority, the revision petitioner herein/Balasubramanian preferred these civil revision petitions on various grounds. 4. 3. Inveighing the said judgement and decrees of the appellate authority, the revision petitioner herein/Balasubramanian preferred these civil revision petitions on various grounds. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Balasubramanian, by inviting the attention of this Court to the various portions of the records, would put forth and set forth his arguements, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus: No doubt there is title dispute between the revision petitioner herein-Balasubramanian, and his mother and sister and in that connection he instituted a civil suit in the year 1994 itself and the said suit was decreed, as against which, appeal was filed by the other side, which was dismissed, confirming the judgement and decree of the trial Court; as against which, the second appeal has been presented with the delay condonation petition and it is pending. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also would submit that his client is competent person to withdraw the amount deposited. Accordingly, he would pray for passing suitable orders. 6. In a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguements as put forth and set forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the tenants/the first respondent in both the revisions would pilot his arguements, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus: There should be ample time for the tenants to report to the Rent Controller, in accordance with Section 9(3) of the Act and this Court might give suitable direction, whereupon the tenants would comply with the same, as they are not concerned with the inter se title dispute among the revision petitioner herein and his relatives, namely, his mother and his sister. 7. The points for consideration are as under: (i) Whether the appeals RCA.Nos.18 and 19 of 2010 filed by the revision petitioner herein were maintainable at all, in view of Section 23(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act? (ii) What direction is warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case? 8. I would like to fumigate my mind with Section 23(1)(b) as well as Section 25 of the Act, which are reproduced hereunder: Sec.23(1)(a) . . . . . Sec.23(1)(b)Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction. 8. I would like to fumigate my mind with Section 23(1)(b) as well as Section 25 of the Act, which are reproduced hereunder: Sec.23(1)(a) . . . . . Sec.23(1)(b)Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction. In computing the fifteen days aforesaid, the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order appealed against shall be excluded." Section 25:Revision (1)The High Court may, on the application of any person aggrieved by an order of the Appellate Authority, call for and examine the record of the Appellate Authority, to satisfy itself as to the regularity of such proceedings or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed therein and if, in any case, it appears to the High Court that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, it may pass orders accordingly." 9. A mere poring over and perusal of those provisions would highlight and spotlight the fact that under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, only two remedies before the higher for a are contemplated; one is appeal and another is revision, as against the order of the Rent Controller. Obviously and axiomatically there is no appeal or revision contemplated as against the authorised officer's proceedings under Section 9(3) of the Act. 10. The ratiocination found embedded in the Act is quite obvious and axiomatic; in furtherance of the deposits made by the tenants with the authorised officer, the formers are expected to report the matter to the Rent Controller, who would decide the matter as per Section 9(4) of the Act. Any person aggrieved by the Rent Controller's order could file appeal and the person aggrieved by the appellate forum's order could prefer revision under the Act. But in this case, surprisingly, what happened was that the said Balasubramanian simply approached the appellate forum, which entertained the appeals and passed orders. 11. Any person aggrieved by the Rent Controller's order could file appeal and the person aggrieved by the appellate forum's order could prefer revision under the Act. But in this case, surprisingly, what happened was that the said Balasubramanian simply approached the appellate forum, which entertained the appeals and passed orders. 11. Hence, for future guidance of the appellate authorities under the Rent Control Act and the authorities concerned, I would like to lay down the law to the effect that no appeal would lie as against the authorised officer's proceedings under Section 9(3) of the Act and it is for the tenant to report, as contemplated under Section 9(4) of the Act, to the Rent Controller the factum of the deposit of the rent with the authorised officer and accordingly, the parties have to work out their remedies. 12. As such, in this case, the tenants so far, it appears, have not made report under Section 9(4) of the Act, wherefore, I would like to give 15 days' time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to file such report before the Rent Controller concerned, who has to act as per Section 9(4) of the Act. The Rent Controller also may have to take into account the pendency of the civil proceedings before the High Court. 13. In the result, the civil revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs.