Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3602 (MAD)

Kalyani v. P. Chockalingam

2014-09-24

V.M.VELUMANI

body2014
Order 1. Civil Revision Petition (MD) No.1385 of 2014 has been filed to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated 21.04.2014, passed in I.A.No.32 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 2011, by the learned Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif Court), Dindigul. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.1673 of 2014 has been filed to set aside the order, dated 19.06.2013, passed in I.A.No.29 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 2011, by the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Dindigul. 3. Since common issues are involved in both the civil revision petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 4. The petitioner is the tenant/respondent, whereas the respondent is the landlord/petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 2011 on the file of District Munsif (Rent Controller), Dindigul. 5. The respondent filed the R.C.O.P. for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. At the time of filing the R.C.O.P., on behalf of the respondent, an application was filed in I.A.No.73 of 2011, for the respondent being represented by Power Agent. The said application was allowed on 22.12.2011. When the R.C.O.P. was taken up for trial, an application in I.A.No.29 of 2013 was filed by the respondent for permission to permit the Manager of the respondent to give evidence on behalf of the respondent. The said application was allowed on 19.06.2013. The Manager of the respondent was examined as P.W.1. The petitioner took time for cross-examination of P.W.1. After taking various adjournments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.32/2013, to scrap the evidence of P.W.1. According to the petitioner, the landlord is avoiding to give evidence and there is no arrears of rent. The Power Agent has not maintained the petition premises at any point of time and he is not the competent person to file R.C.O.P. P.W.1, at no point of time, maintained and managed the petition premises on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for scrapping the evidence of P.W.1. 6. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments. The Power Agent of the respondent stated that the respondent is a Doctor, working in U.S.A. for the past 33 years and the present Power Agent is the brother of the respondent/landlord. Previously, the husband of the petitioner R.M.Sathappan was the Power Agent of the respondent and maintaining the property. 6. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments. The Power Agent of the respondent stated that the respondent is a Doctor, working in U.S.A. for the past 33 years and the present Power Agent is the brother of the respondent/landlord. Previously, the husband of the petitioner R.M.Sathappan was the Power Agent of the respondent and maintaining the property. The said power was cancelled on 12.12.2007 and the present Power of Attorney has been executed appointing his brother as Power Agent. P.W.1 was collecting rent in respect of the petition premises and the petitioner herself paid the rent to P.W.1. Only after obtaining orders from the Court in I.A.No.73 of 2011, the R.C.O.P. was filed by the Power Agent on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner did not file any counter and she did not object the said application. 7. The learned Rent Controller considering the pleadings and arguments, dismissed the application in I.A.No.32 of 2013, to scrap the evidence of the petitioner. Against the said order of dismissal, C.R.P.(MD)No.1385 of 2014 has been filed. Against the order, allowing I.A.No.29 of 2013 filed by the respondent for permission to permit the Manager to give evidence on behalf of the respondent, C.R.P.(MD)No.1673 of 2014, has been filed. 8. Heard Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Lawrance, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 9. After notice to the respondent/landlord, C.R.P.(MD) No.1385 of 2014 was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments submitted that the petitioner has already filed C.R.P.(MD) No.1673 of 2014, challenging the order permitting the Manager of the respondent to examine on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, both the civil revision petitions are posted together for hearing. 10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the person, who is projected as a Manager of the respondent was never in Management of the petition premises. He has nothing to do with petition premises. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no notice was given to him in the I.A. for permission to examine the Manager of the respondent as a witness. Therefore, he prayed allowing the civil revision petitions. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that only the Manager of the respondent is sought to be examined as a witness and he is well versed with the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, he prayed allowing the civil revision petitions. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that only the Manager of the respondent is sought to be examined as a witness and he is well versed with the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the petitioner herself has paid the rent to the Manager, who is now sought to be examined as a witness. The learned counsel for the respondent also produced certified copy of the affidavit and petition in I.A.No.29 of 2013 and the contention of the petitioner that no notice was given is not correct. 12. The respondent was granted permission to file R.C.O.P. through his Power Agent. Similarly, permission was granted to examine the Manager of the respondent as P.W.1. The respondent is entitled to authorise his employees, who is well versed with the facts of the case, to give evidence on his behalf. In the present case, the Manager of the respondent is authorised to give evidence. P.W.1 has collected rent from the petitioner also. Therefore, he is the competent person to give evidence. The learned Judge considered all the materials on record and appreciated the facts in proper perspective and dismissed the application to scrap the evidence of P.W.1. There is no material irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. 13. It is seen from the certified copy of the affidavit and petition in I.A.No.29 of 2013, a notice has been given to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without notice, the said application has been allowed is untenable and unsustainable. Further, the landlord can authorise any person to give evidence on his behalf, who knows the facts of the case. In the present case, the person, who is sought to be examined as the Manager and he has collected rent from the petitioner also. Therefore, he is the competent person to give evidence on behalf of the respondent. 14. The learned Judge has considered all the materials on record and properly appreciating the facts, has allowed the application in I.A.No.29 of 2013 and dismissed the application in I.A.No.32 of 2013. There is no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judge. Hence, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.