Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 130 (MAD)

Sunder Bai v. P. Kumar

2023-01-06

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2023
ORDER : PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order and decree passed in MP No.2 of 2021 in RLTOP No.249 of 2020 dated 26.09.2022 on the file of the XII Small Causes Court, Chennai. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in MP No.2 of 2021 in RLTOP No.249 of 2020 dated 26.09.2022. 2. The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondents 1 and 2 are the landlord filed RLTOP No.249 of 2020 for eviction under Section 21(2)(a) of the New Act. 3. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents 1 and 2 filed miscellaneous petition in MP No.2 of 2021 to implead the revision petitioner as party in the RLTOP proceedings. The said miscellaneous petition was allowed and thus the petitioner is constrained to move the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made a submission that the revision petitioner is a tenant, but not impleaded as party in the RLTOP at the initial stage. Thus the respondents 1 and 2 cannot implead the revision petitioner as party in the RLTOP proceedings, which is pending. No relief was sought for by the revision petitioner against the RLTOP proceedings and thus the Interlocutory Application for impleading is not maintainable. 5. It is not in dispute that the husband of the revision petitioner was the original tenant and after his demise, the revision petitioner is in possession of the subject premises and running business. The revision petitioner herself admits that she is the tenant under the respondents 1 and 2, who are the landlord and paying the monthly rent to them. 6. An application was filed for eviction of tenant and further the revision petitioner admittedly has not entered into an agreement in writing under Section 4(2) of the Act. While-so, the respondents 1 and 2 filed an application to implead the revision petitioner. When the revision petitioner herself says that she is the tenant under the respondents 1 and 2, who are the landlord and paying monthly rent to them, they became necessary party in the eviction proceedings. 7. While-so, the respondents 1 and 2 filed an application to implead the revision petitioner. When the revision petitioner herself says that she is the tenant under the respondents 1 and 2, who are the landlord and paying monthly rent to them, they became necessary party in the eviction proceedings. 7. This Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in MP No.2 of 2021 in RLTOP No.249 of 2020. 8. Accordingly, the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in MP No.2 of 2021 in RLTOP No.249 of 2020 stands confirmed. The Rent Court is directed to dispose of the RLTOP proceedings as expeditiously as possible, keeping in mind the time limit prescribed under Section 36(6) of the Act. 9. With the abovesaid directions, the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.