Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 3214 (MAD)

K. Dhanasekaran v. G. V. Vanitha

2012-07-23

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order 10.7.2012 passed by the District Munsif, Alandur, in E.A.SR.No.9486 of 2012 in E.P.No.36 of 2002 in RCOP No.30 of 1997, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The revision petitioners herein, being 3rd parties, filed the application E.A.SR.9486 of 2012 under Order 21 Rules 96 to 100 of C.P.C., seeking the following relief: "to pass an order as the above execution proceedings is not maintainable as against the petitioners both in law as well as on facts." (extracted as such) 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners herein would echo the cri de coeur of his clients to the effect that without even numbering the said application and also without giving an opportunity of being heard to the revision petitioners herein, the Executing Court simply rejected it, which is against law, warranting interference in revision. He would also cite the decision of this Court reported in CHANDRAN & OTHERS V. K.M.MUTHUSAMY AND ANOTHER. 5. This Court raised the point as to how the revision under Section 115 of the CPC would be maintainable relating to E.P. proceedings touching upon rent control matters. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that this might even be treated as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by allowing the M.P.No.3 of 2012. 7. At this juncture, I would like to fumigate my mind with the unreported decision of this Court dated 3.7.2012 passed in C.R.P.NPD.No.4888 of 2011. 8. As of now, the law has got settled that the Rent Control matters as well as the allied E.P. proceedings should be processed only under the special enactment, namely, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed by the lower Court judge concerned only under the said Act, in the process of executing the order passed in the rent control matter. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed by the lower Court judge concerned only under the said Act, in the process of executing the order passed in the rent control matter. 9. Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act contemplates preferring of appeal as against any order passed by the Rent Controller and as such, the only remedy open for the revision petitioners is to approach the appellate forum and not straight away this Court either under Section 115 of C.P.C. or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, would try to carve out an exception to the aforesaid general principal that this is a singularly singular case, in which, even without numbering and without giving due opportunity of being heard, so to say, without adhering to the principle of audi alteram partem, such rejection was made and that could be taken as an extraordinary feature, so as to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 11. I am of the considered view that Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act provides a cheaper and effective remedy for the persons, like the petitioners herein and when such an effective and cheaper remedy is available for the petitioners, there is no knowing of the fact as to why Article 227 of the Constitution should be invoked. 12. Hence, I am of the view that this revision is not maintainable. However, liberty is given to the petitioners as aforesaid, to approach the appellate forum as per law, excluding the period between the date of filing of this revision, i.e. 16.7.2012 and the date of this order and also the time that would be taken for getting the certified copy of this order, to prefer appeal under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 13. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.