Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2655 (MAD)

N. K. Indira v. M. Santhanam

2013-07-25

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.95/2013 on the file of the VIIth Small Causes Court, Chennai. 2. The petitioner herein as the landlady filed R.C.O.P.No.93/2010 for fixation of fair rent against the respondent herein. An exparte order came to be passed against the respondent on 25.04.2012. Hence an application was filed in M.P.No.302/2012 seeking to set aside the said exparte order. The learned Rent Controller by order dated 21.07.2012 allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- payable to the petitioner herein and another sum of Rs.1,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority. The said order was further challenged by the respondent herein before the Rent Control Appellate Authority aggrieved over imposing of the cost. The Appellate Authority by the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition deleted the cost. Thus the present Civil Revision Petition is filed before this Court. 3. Heard Mr.N.Amarnath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials placed before this Court. 4. Admittedly M.P.No.302/2012 was allowed by the Rent Controller by holding that the respondent herein should not suffer on account of his non-appearance of his counsel on cross examination of P.W.1. It is also observed therein that the respondent cannot be thrown out of the litigation defeating his opportunities to contest the case on merits. No doubt the learned Rent Controller while allowing the application also imposed a cost of Rs.2,000/- as stated supra. Admittedly the said order of the Rent Controller was not challenged by the petitioner herein. On the other hand, only the respondent has challenged the same before the Appellate Authority aggrieved against the imposing of the cost alone. Now the Appellate Authority passed the present order deleting the cost. The learned counsel Mr.N.Amarnath submitted that the attitude of the respondent cannot be left without imposing any cost as the learned Rent Controller has rightly exercised his discretion and imposed a cost and the Lower Appellate Court ought not have interfered with. No doubt the learned Rent Controller has imposed the cost by exercising his discretion. Equally the Appellate Authority while considering the appeal has exercised his discretion and deleted the cost by finding that it is not warranted. The fact remains that the application filed by the respondent in M.P.No.302/2012 was allowed and the same was not questioned by the petitioner herein earlier. Equally the Appellate Authority while considering the appeal has exercised his discretion and deleted the cost by finding that it is not warranted. The fact remains that the application filed by the respondent in M.P.No.302/2012 was allowed and the same was not questioned by the petitioner herein earlier. He is aggrieved only against the deletion of the cost. In my considered view imposing of cost is also discretion of the Court with which this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot interfere more particularly under the circumstances that the petitioner herein has not challenged the order allowing the application in M.P.No.302/2012. Thus I find that there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and consequently the same is dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller may be directed to dispose of the matter pending before him within a short time since the R.C.O.P. is of the year 2010. 6. Considering the said request there shall be a direction to the Rent Controller to dispose of the matter which is pending before him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.