ORDER
Somasundaram, J.
1. This is a revision against an order of the Rent Controller refusing to file a complaint under Section 476 Crl. P. C. in respect of a receipt filed before his court. In the application by the respondent to evict the petitioner herein two grounds were urged: (i) arrears of rent, and (ii) sub-letting. On the ground of sub-letting the petitioner was evicted. The Rent Controller also gave a finding that there was a default in payment of rent.
With regard to this default in payment of rent, the counterfoil of the receipt book produced by the respondent is alleged to contain sane alterations on which the tenant, who has been evicted, seeks to prosecute the landlord. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that it was not expedient in the interests of justice to lay a complaint. An appeal was then preferred to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court also dismissed the appeal. The present revision is against that order of the Sessions Court.
2. The learned advocate, who appears for the respondents, takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this criminal revision petition on the ground that it was a civil court which dealt with the application for eviction and as such, the appeal should have been laid before the Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, and the revision, if any here, should have been filed as a civil revision petition. This procedure was not followed in this case, and therefore this petition does not lie on the criminal side.
The decision of a Full Bench of this court in
Kumaravel v. Shanmuga Nadar, ILR 1940 Mad
762 : (AIR 1940 Mad 465) is clear on the point
that a civil court does not cease to be a civil
court when it is considering an application made
to it under Section 476 Crl. P. C. and that a revision
ought to be filed only as a civil revision petition
under Section 115 C. P. C. The preliminary objection is
upheld and the petition is dismissed.