Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 456 (MAD)

R. S. A. Chandrasekar v. S. Rajalakshmi

2014-02-24

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
ORDER 1. The arguments advanced by Mr.G.Jayachandran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner are heard. 2. The landlord in R.C.O.P.No.930 of 2012 on the file of the XV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, is the petitioner in both the revision petitions. The revision petition No.549 of 2014 has been filed challenging the docket order dated 07.11.2013 made in M.P.No.424 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.930 of 2012 on the file of the XV Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai, and the revision petition No.550 of 2014 has been filed challenging the docket order dated 07.11.2013 made in M.P.No.425 of 2013 in R.C.O.P.No.930 of 2012 on the file of the XV Judge of Small Causes Court, Chennai. Both the Civil Revision Petitions came to be filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The orders, which are sought to be challenged in these Civil Revision Petitions, are nothing but orders directing service of notice on the respondent in those miscellaneous petitions, who is the revision petitioner in these Civil Revision Petitions. After the said order, notices were served and ultimately after recording service of notice, a docket order came to be passed granting time till 12.12.2013 for filing counter. 3. The respondent herein, against whom the RCOP came to be filed for eviction on the ground of willful default, entered appearance in the RCOP, took time for filing counter and failed to file counter within the time granted by the Rent Controller. Consequently, a docket order setting her ex-parte came to be passed on 10.10.2012. The said order was nothing but an order indicating the decision of the Rent Controller to proceed with the RCOP ex-parte against the absenting tenant. Final order disposing of the RCOP had not been passed. Before such disposal, the respondent herein/tenant filed two miscellaneous petitions numbered as M.P.Nos.806 and 807 of 2012. Among those two petitions, M.P.No.807 of 2012 came to be filed on an erroneous assumption that the other miscellaneous petition viz., M.P.No.806 of 2012 which was filed for setting aside an order by which the tenant was set ex-parte indicating the decision of the Rent Controller to proceed with the ex-parte enquiry, there is a limitation for filing. But neither in the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 nor in the relevant orders of the Civil Procedure Code, such a limitation is fixed. But neither in the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 nor in the relevant orders of the Civil Procedure Code, such a limitation is fixed. On the other hand, the Rules in both the legislations contemplate a limitation of 30 days to file an application/miscellaneous petition to set aside the ex-parte decree or ex-parte order of eviction or ex-parte order of dismissal of the petition whereby the petition shall be finally disposed of. Till the proceedings are concluded resulting in either an order of eviction or an order dismissing the eviction petition, there shall be no question of any limitation for application seeking permission to take part in the proceedings and to restore status quo ante by receiving counter or written statement as the case may be, alone a petition shall be needed. 4. In M.P.Nos.806 and 807 of 2012, by virtue of an endorsement made on behalf of the landlord, a conditional order came to be passed on 22.01.2013 directing payment of Rs.500/- as cost in each one of the said petitions on or before 24.01.2013. As the said cost awarded in those petitions were not paid, those petitions came to be dismissed on 28.01.2013. Only thereafter, the Rent Controller proceeded with the ex-parte enquiry in the RCOP and passed an order directing eviction of the respondent herein/tenant by an order dated 17.06.2013. The said order dated 17.06.2013 alone gave a final disposal to the RCOP. The limitation of 30 days contemplated in Rule 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 cannot be interpreted to mean an order indicating the decision of the Rent Controller to proceed with the enquiry ex-parte on a future date. On the other hand, it refers to an ex-parte order of eviction or an ex-parte order of dismissal. Hence, the cause of action for filing application under the said Rule arose only on passing of the ex-parte eviction order dated 17.06.2013. 5. It is not in dispute that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is attracted to an application filed under Rule 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974. Hence, the cause of action for filing application under the said Rule arose only on passing of the ex-parte eviction order dated 17.06.2013. 5. It is not in dispute that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is attracted to an application filed under Rule 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974. The same was the reason why, the respondent herein/tenant filed two applications as M.P.Nos.424 and 425 of 2013, the former one for condoning the delay in filing the latter application and the latter one for setting aside the ex-parte order of eviction dated 17.06.2013. In both the applications, the learned Rent Controller has chosen to order notice and those applications are yet to be disposed of. The revision petitioner has come forward with the present revisions on the assumption that the dismissal of the earlier petitions viz., M.P.Nos.806 and 807 of 2012 would debar the judgment debtor in the eviction order from seeking an order setting aside the ex-parte eviction order and that hence, the present applications viz., M.P.Nos.424 and 425 of 2013 are not maintainable. 6. This Court is not in a position to accept the above said contention raised on behalf of the revision petitioner/landlord. It is not as if the case for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the revisions do not even merit admission and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.