Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 475 (MAD)

S. Kantilal Prakash Chand Jain v. M. Suvee Raja

2014-02-25

P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2014
Judgment : The respondent has entered appearance through counsel by lodging a caveat. The submissions made by Ms.Gomathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr.G.Jehanathan, learned counsel for the respondent/caveator are heard. The copy of the impugned order, grounds of revision and other documents produced in the form of typed-set of papers are also perused. 2. The tenant, who suffered an order of eviction in the hands of Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.1000 of 2007, which was filed on the ground of bonafide requirement for owner's occupation, chose to prefer an application to set aside the said eviction order on the ground that the said order was passed ex parte. The learned Rent Controller passed an order on 15.07.2009 allowing the said application on the following two conditions: i) A sum of Rs.500/- should be paid as costs; ii) The revision petitioner (tenant) should proceed with the cross-examination of PW1, who had already been examined in chief. 3. The revision petitioner / tenant, who complied with the first condition by making payment of the costs awarded therein, prolonged the case without putting even a question in the cross-examination to PW1 in compliance with the second condition. On the other hand, the revision petitioner/tenant was able to get liberal adjournments in the Court of the Rent Controller. After granting several adjournments, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application M.P.No.346 of 2008 by an order dated 04.08.2009. After the dismissal of M.P.No.346 of 2008, the revision petitioner filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.172 of 2010 against the ex parte order of eviction dated 13.08.2008 and another R.C.A against the order dated 04.08.2009 made in M.P.No.346 of 2008 with a delay of 1454 days. The said miscellaneous petition in the unnumbered R.C.A came to be taken on file by the Rent Control Appellate Authority as M.P.No.523 of 2013 and the said petition was dismissed, after hearing, by an order dated 14.09.2013. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court in C.R.P.No.4292 of 2013, which came to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself by an order dated 10.12.2013. 4. Meanwhile R.C.A.No.172 of 2010, which was filed against the original ex parte order of eviction dated 13.08.2008 also came to be dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 07.11.2012 without going into the merits of the appeal, but reciting the dilatory tactics adopted by the revision petitioner herein/tenant. 5. 4. Meanwhile R.C.A.No.172 of 2010, which was filed against the original ex parte order of eviction dated 13.08.2008 also came to be dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority on 07.11.2012 without going into the merits of the appeal, but reciting the dilatory tactics adopted by the revision petitioner herein/tenant. 5. The said judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority made in R.C.A.No.172 of 2010 dated 07.11.2012 was challenged before this Court in C.R.P.No.99 of 2013. This Court by order dated 15.03.2013 set aside the decree of the appellate authority holding that the appellate authority did not consider the merits of the appeal and remitted the R.C.A back to the appellate authority to pronounce a judgment on merits in stead of trying to dismiss the same on technical grounds. After remand, R.C.A.No.172 of 2010 was re-heard by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Appellate Authority traversed the pleadings and evidence and based on the re-appreciation of evidence rendered a finding that the landlord, namely the respondent herein had proved that the demised premises was needed for her own occupation. Accordingly, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority delivered a judgment incorporating the said finding and passed a decree dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. As against the said judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dated 25.06.2013, the present revision has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made an attempt to contend that the Rent Control Appellate Authority did not go into the merits of the matter by re-appraising the evidence. The above said attempt made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, according to the considered view of this Court, is not successful. When the sole respondent/tenant remains ex parte and the Court is left with the evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff alone, the narration of the case of the plaintiff, evidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff and recording its brief finding shall be sufficient to show that the trial Court considered the evidence and passed an order of being satisfied with the proof of the averments made in the plaint/petition. When the ex parte order of eviction was challenged before the appellate authority, the revision petitioner did not point out what were the evidence or aspects which would go against the prayer for eviction on the ground of owner's occupation. Even in the present revision petition, learned counsel is not in a position to point out what are the aspects which were omitted to be considered by the Rent Controller/Rent Control Appellate Authority. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in the challenge made to the judgment and decree of the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition and the revision does not even merit admission. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. Though it is a clear case for awarding cost, taking a lenient view, this Court refrains from passing any order regarding costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.