Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2361 (MAD)

M. Ramachandran v. Revathi Vijayan

2014-08-05

V.M.VELUMANI

body2014
Order 1. These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the order dated 30.04.2011, passed in R.C.A.Nos.66 of 2010 and 68 of 2009, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge (Appellate Authority for Rent Controller), Madurai. 2. The petitioner in both the C.R.Ps. is a tenant, whereas the respondents are the landlords in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court (Rent Controller), Madurai. 3. The landlords filed R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008 for eviction of the petitioner herein. The R.C.O.P. was posted for trial. After recording evidence and conclusion of arguments on behalf of the respondents, the R.C.O.P. was posted for the arguments on behalf of the petitioner, on 06.11.2009. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a Memo of Notice, dated 27.10.2009, seeking for a direction to the respondents to produce the original sale deed, dated 27.04.2006. The respondents filed objections stating that the original sale deed is deposited with the Bank and amounts were borrowed to construct a hospital building. Accepting the objections filed by the respondents, the learned Rent Controller, dismissed the said Memo of Notice, to produce the documents, on 06.11.2009. On the same day, the R.C.O.P. was allowed ordering eviction of petitioner and two months time was granted for delivery of possession to the respondents. Against the said order, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.68 of 2009. The petitioner obtained a copy of the order, dated 06.11.2009, made in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008. In the said order furnished to the petitioner, the name of the second respondent was not incorporated. Further, according to the petitioner, the description of the property was wrongly mentioned. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.354 of 2009, to amend the order, dated 06.11.2009, made in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008, to incorporate the second respondent's name and to mention the correct description of the property. The learned Rent Controller held that any mistake in the order dated 06.11.2009, can be corrected as per Section 152 of C.P.C., but dismissed the Interlocutory Application on the ground that the entire records of the R.C.O.P. was sent to the Appellate Court, as the petitioner has filed R.C.A.No.68 of 2009. Against the said order, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.66 of 2010. The learned appellate Judge considered both the appeals and passed a common order, on 30.04.2011. Against the said order, the petitioner filed R.C.A.No.66 of 2010. The learned appellate Judge considered both the appeals and passed a common order, on 30.04.2011. By the said common order, the appellate Judge, dismissed R.C.A.No.68 of 2009 on the ground that the issue raised by the petitioner can only be agitated and decided if the appeal was filed against the order, dated 06.11.2009, made in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008, ordering eviction of the petitioner. As no R.C.O.P. is pending against the order of eviction of petitioner, the R.C.A. is not maintainable. 4. As far as R.C.A.No.66 of 2010 is concerned, the appellate Judge allowed the said appeal partly holding that the name of the second respondent has been omitted accidentally and therefore, the mistake has to be corrected by incorporating the name of the second respondent. As far as the correction of description of property is concerned, the learned Judge dismissed the said request on the ground that the property is correctly described in the order. Against the said order, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petitions. 5. Heard Mr. T.R. Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and Mr. V. Ramakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Judge ought to have allowed the Memo of Notice filed by the petitioner and ought to have direct the respondents to produce the original sale deed, dated 27.04.2006. As far as the Rent Control Appeal in R.C.A.No.66 of 2010 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the description of property differs from the description of property in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008 and the order, dated 06.11.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner read out the description of property in the R.C.O.P. as well as in the order, dated 06.11.2009. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority does not suffer from any illegality and they are valid and legal and prayed for dismissal of both the civil revision petitions. 8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the materials available on record and also perused the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority. 9. 8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the materials available on record and also perused the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority. 9. The appellate authority has considered the materials available on record and rightly dismissed R.C.A.No.68 of 2009 holding that the petitioner can only agitate the said issue, if he files any appeal against the order, dated 06.11.2009, ordering eviction made in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008. Similarly, the order passed in R.C.A.No.66 of 2010 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. I have referred to description of the property in the R.C.O.P. as well as the order, dated 06.11.2009, passed in R.C.O.P.No.82 of 2008, I do not find any difference in the description of property in both the R.C.O.P. and the order, dated 06.11.2009. Therefore, I hold that there is no infirmity or illegality in the common order, dated 30.04.2011, passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai. Hence, these civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.