Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1432 (MAD)

N. Ramani v. Priya

2021-04-22

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

body2021
ORDER : Since the issue involved in these petitions, parties and the rent control proceedings are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed. 2. The present petitions are posted under the caption 'for maintainability'. The present Revisions are filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act to set aside the order passed in R.C.A.Nos.13 and 14 of 2018 dated 30.08.2019 respectively on the file of the Rent Controller Appellate Tribunal, Vellore (Principal Subordinate Judge's Court) Vellore District confirming the fair and decreetal order of the Rent Controller, Vellore in R.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 dated 23.01.2018 and in I.A.No.211 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 dated 23.01.2018 respectively. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is neither legal nor proper and the Appellate Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner/appellant was not present in the court during the hearing. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the appellate court failed to appreciate that R.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 was allowed despite there being no argument hence forth by the parties or the counsel, as the day on which the case was posted was a local boycott day. The Rent Controller has not applied its judicial mind to decide in R.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 and I.A.No.211 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 without assigning any reason, which ought to have been set aside by the appellate tribunal. Hence seeks to allow the present revision petitions at the initial stage itself. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record. 6. On a perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that R.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 was filed by the respondent to pass an order of eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the schedule mentioned property and to direct the respondent to deliver the schedule building with costs of the proceedings. The court below by an order dated 23.01.2018 has observed that the petitioner/tenant failed to comply the order dated 10.01.2018 passed in I.A.No.211 of 2017 and no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner/tenant, thereby directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition property to the respondent and directed the petitioner/tenant to pay the costs. The court below by an order dated 23.01.2018 has observed that the petitioner/tenant failed to comply the order dated 10.01.2018 passed in I.A.No.211 of 2017 and no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner/tenant, thereby directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the petition property to the respondent and directed the petitioner/tenant to pay the costs. Further, I.A.No.211 of 2017 was filed by the respondent to stop all further proceedings in the R.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 and pass orders directing the petitioner to pay arrears of rent due Rs.42,000/- and if they fail to do so, sought a direction to put the respondent in possession. The court below by an order dated 23.01.2018 in I.A.No.211 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 observed that “Both side no representation, order dated 10.01.2018 is not complied, hence, petition is allowed and the petitioner was directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession forthwith to the respondent. As against the same, the present Revision Petitions are filed. 7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that both the unnumbered revision petitions filed by the petitioner with a delay of 133 days, are not maintainable, as per Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act and the same is extracted hereunder : Section 25(2) Tamilnadu Building Lease and Rent Control Act:- “Every application to the High Court for the exercise of its power under sub-section(1) shall be preferred within one month from the date on which the order on proceeding to which the application relates is communicated to the applicant. Provided that the High Court may, in its direction, allow further time not exceeding one month for the filing of any such application, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the time specified in this sub-section.” 8. Since the present unnumbered Revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner with a delay of 133 days, this Court is of the view that the present Revision Petitions, filed only in the year 2020 under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act is not maintainable. Since the present unnumbered Revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner with a delay of 133 days, this Court is of the view that the present Revision Petitions, filed only in the year 2020 under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act is not maintainable. Though the order in R.C.O.P.No.49 of 2015 was passed as early as on 23.01.2018 and the petitioner is well aware of the same, the petitioner cannot maintain the present Civil Revision Petition and this Court is not convinced with the averments raised by the petitioner. The petitioners have not made any prima facie case before this Court for its intervention. Accordingly, the present unnumbered Revision Petitions are not maintainable and the same are hereby rejected. No costs.