Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4020 (MAD)

G. Sathish Bhatia v. N. S. Gnaneswaran

2016-11-24

K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2016
ORDER : K.K. Sasidharan, J. The petitioner filed an Application before the learned Rent Controller to implead him as a party to the Rent Control Original Petition, on the ground that he is in possession of the schedule premises. 2. The learned Rent Controller was of the view that the lease was not given to the petitioner, and as such, he is not a necessary party. The Impleading Petition was, therefore, dismissed. The said Order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner produced voluminous documents before the learned Rent Controller to show that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. In spite of those documents, the learned Rent Controller passed an order, dismissing the Application. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent justified the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. According to the learned counsel, there is no privity of contract between the landlord and the petitioner, and as such, the learned Rent Controller was incorrect in dismissing the Impleading Petition. 5. The petitioner made a claim that he is doing the business by occupying the schedule premises. The petitioner produced certain documents to substantiate his contentions. The learned Rent Controller was of the view that there was no lease in favour of the petitioner, and as such, there is no question of impleading him as party to the Rent Control Proceedings. 6. The learned Rent Controller appears to have not considered the definition of the term 'Tenant', as provided under Section 8, sub-clause (ii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. 7. The petitioner produced prima facie materials before the learned Rent Controller, indicating that he has been continuing the business along with the original tenant. Those materials are sufficient to implead the petitioner in the Rent Control Original Proceedings. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned Rent Controller was not correct in dismissing the Petition. 8. The order, dated 18.03.2016, is set aside. The Petition in M.P.No.380 of 2015, is allowed. However, I make it clear that this Order, impleading the petitioner shall not be construed as an admission that the petitioner is a tenant and he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 8. The order, dated 18.03.2016, is set aside. The Petition in M.P.No.380 of 2015, is allowed. However, I make it clear that this Order, impleading the petitioner shall not be construed as an admission that the petitioner is a tenant and he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In short, it is for the learned Rent Controller to adjudicate the issue based on the materials available on record. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above observation. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed. C.R.P. allowed with observation - No costs - C.M.P. closed.