ORDER
S. Ashok Kumar, J.
1. revision petitioner in both the revision petitions is the tenant in the main RCOPs filed before the Rent Controller filed by the landlady/respondent to evict the tenant from the petition premises. Pending the RCOPs, the tenant filed Miscellaneous Petition Nos:473 and 481 of 2005 before the Rent Controller contending that the landlady is a mentally retarded person and she is not entitled to institute the main RCOPs against the tenant. According to the tenant the landlady is not in sound mental health for the past 60 years and one M.E. Devarajan has prepared bogus documents to file the main RCOPs. Even in the enquiry in the RCOPs one M. Ramasamy stood as witness and deposed on behalf of the landlady. Therefore, it is just and necessary to issue subphena to the landlady to appear in court and to satisfy the court as to her mental status.
2. On behalf of the landlady, in the counter affidavit it was contended that the tenant is in arrears of nearly Rs. 22,000/-. The said Ramasamy is the power of attorney of the landlady. Since the landlady is 75 years old, she is not in a position to come to court and depose in her case and therefore she has given Power of Attorney to the said Ramasamy. The documents prepared by one M.E. Devarajan is denied. P.W.1 Ramasamy has been cross examined in the main RCOPs. It is only to cause delay in the eviction proceedings, the present Miscellaneous Petitions are filed by the tenant.
3. The learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of the averments of the parties and the submissions made by the respective counsel rejected the plea for issuing a Subphena to the landlady. Against the same, the tenant preferred RCA Nos: 1012 and 1013 of 2005. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and rejected the Rent Control Appeals. Having not satisfied, the present two CRPs are filed by the tenant.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner referred to the definition of mental ill-health as defined in Section 2(1) of the Mental Health Act and contended that the landlady being a mentally ill person who is in need of treatment by reason of mental disorder other than mental retardation, the courts below ought not to have held that the landlady is being governed by Section 50(1) of the Act. He also contended that the provisions contained in Order XXXII Rules 1 to 15 are applicable to the Rent Control Court proceedings for the limited purpose of appointment of a guardian since the Rent Control Act does not contain provisions for appointment of a guardian for a mentally infirm person.
5. A perusal of the order of the authorities below would show that even in the counter filed in the RCOPs, the tenant has not disputed the relationship of landlady and tenant. From the averments it is also clear that both the landlady and the tenant are relatives i.e., the tenant’s sister has married the elder son of the landlady. There exists a family dispute also over the properties. The tenant has been inducted into possession during 1984 as a tenant by the father of the landlady with whom he entered into a oral agreement. While so, it is not known on what basis the tenant says that the landlady has been in mental retardation for the past 60 years. Admittedly the tenant has not produced any documentary proof as to the mental illness of the landlady before the learned Rent Controller. Only at the appellate stage in the RCAs the tenant produced a certificate obtained from a Private Doctor on 10.8.2005 stating that the landlady is a mentally retarded person.
6. It is also the admitted fact that on 5.2.2005, the tenant himself taken a Pay Order in the name of the landlady. It is also admitted by the tenant that on 18.2.2005 a demand draft for a sum of RS.25,000/= has been taken and sent to the landlady. These things would only go to show that the tenant had no doubt as to the mental soundness of the landlady all these days.
7. Section 11(3) of the Rent Control Act also enables a party to examine a person on his behalf. Therefore the landlady, being a 75 years old woman appointed one Ramasamy as his power of attorney to appear and give evidence in her case. Ex.P.1 is the income tax return of the landlady.
8. Before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the tenant took out M.P.No:706 of 2005 to file additional document, which is a Certificate given by Dr. Anand Balan, MBNBS, DNB, as to the mental condition of the landlady. The said certificate reads as follows:
TO WHOM-SO-EVER IT MAY CONCERN
This is to certify that I have examined Mrs. G.V. Nagammal (W/o.late Mr. G.M. Venkatesalu Naidu) on 10.8.2005 at 3.00 pm., at the request of her son Mr. G.V. Lakshmi Narayanan residing at No. 26 (Old No. 39) Diwan Rama Road, Purasawakkam, Chennai-84. She is mentally retarded and at the time of my examination and in my opinion, incapable of taking decisions on her own.
9. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition filed along with the RCAs holding that such certificate has been produced belatedly and there is no details as to what are the methods that have been adopted by the said Doctor to arrive at such a decision.
10. In the Additional Affidavits filed in support of the Miscellaneous Petitions filed along with these CRPs, the tenant has also submitted that as observed by the authorities below his son, being a relative invoking the provisions of the Mental Heal Act, has filed C.S.No:121 of 2006 before this Court praying for a declaration that the landlady is a mentally retarded person and for various other reliefs. Along with the suit he has filed Application for examination of the landlady by a Panel of Doctors. But the said application has been dismissed on 11.10.2006 holding that such an application is unnecessary and such a prayer could be considered at the time of trial of the suit. Along with the said suit, two other certificates issued by two Doctors have been enclosed, copy of which certificates have also been produced by the tenant in these revisions.
11. One of the Certificate viz., the “Psychological Report” dated 19.7.2006 given by Dr. T. Santhanam, Ph.D., D. Psy,M., B.Ed.(S.E.), FIAPP, who is also a Rehabilitation Psychologist and Psychotherapist & Special Educator, assessed the landlady’s intellectual capacity by following the tests: (1) Binet Kamath (2) Vineland Social Maturity Scale and (3) Weschler Memory Scale. On conducting such tests he found out as follows:
Observation during Testing: She was very cooperative during testing. Able to answer the questions asked by the Examiner. She understood the questions and answered accordingly. Sometimes, she requires some clue to answer the questions.
Speech and Language: Her speech is slurry at present, but the family members said that, she used to speak clearly during her young age.
General Awareness: Now she is very much aware of the day-to-day activities. She is able to tell who is the present Chief Minister and past Chief Minster. she is very well able to recognize the cinema actor and actress and some political leaders.
Reading and Writing: She is able to read Tamil Newspapers and Magazines, her comprehension ability was average. She is able to write simple words and sentences.
Inter-personal activities: She is able to identify her relatives and friends. She greets them and enquires about their welfare.
Self-help skills: She is able to perform the self help skills like eating, dressing and grooming. As she is having problem in her leg, she requires somebody’s help to go to toilet. She is able to move around with walker.
Test Results: The Vineland Social Maturity Scale reveals that her S.Q., is 72 and Bine Kamath Test reveals her I.Q. as 65. This low scores might be due to the age factor and lack of environmental exposure, so it is not possible to conclude that she is having mental retardation. Further, as per definition of mental retardation, the person must have significantly below average intelligence and deficiency in the adaptive skills during development age i.e, below 18 years. But her case history reveals that she had studied upto VIII Std., and no deficiencies in the adaptive behaviour was reported during the period.
Conclusion: the present deficiencies in her actives might be due to her old age problems not because of mental retardation. Hence she is not the person with mental retardation.
12. The other Certificate is given by Dr. R. Sathianathen. He has studied M.D.,(Psych) D.P.M., M.PH.,(USA). He is Professor of Psychiatry at Madras Medical College, and consultant Psychiatrist, at the Government General Hospital, Chennai. He is also the President of Indian Psychiatric Society for South Zone and Chairman of Continuing Medical Education, Indian Psychiatric Society and Secretary of Alzheimer”s & Related Disorders Society of India, Madras Chapter. He has certified as follows:
This is to certify that Mrs. Nagammal, aged 75 years was referred for assessment of Intellectual efficiency. The history reveals that she has been married and has taken household responsibilities and provided good care of the family throughout these years.
She was able to comprehend questions and answered relevantly. She was aware the day to day actives. She was able to read Tamil news paper and seems to enjoy watching the television. However, at times she appears to be slightly confused and disoriented.
The psychological assessment reveals a low IQ (65) which possibly could be due to the age and environmental factors.
Therefore, t is opined that her low level of intellectual functioning is due to the age and environment and not because of mental retardation.
13. A reading of the above two certificate would show that her low level of intellectual functioning is only due to her old age and environment and not because of her mental retardation. Both the Doctors have certified that she knows the day-to-day activities and able to read Tamil newspapers. Merely because her IQ is low which is due to her old age, it cannot be considered that she is “mentally ill” person as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act. For such low I.Q. due to old age a person need not go for a psychiatric treatment. It is also not proved by the tenant that she is taking treatment for such disorder. Therefore even as per Section 2(1) of the Mental Health Act, it cannot be said that she is an “mentally ill” person who needs treatment by reason of any mental disorder other than metal retardation.
14. As already stated both the parties are relatives and there is a family dispute over the properties. The very wordings employed in the conclusions opined by both the doctors would only reveal that the old landlady has been subjected to three doctors by her son to obtain a certificate of “mental retardation” and not of her mental condition. This also raises a serious doubt of collusion between the tenant and the landlady’s son. Further, as already held by the authorities below, the Miscellaneous Petitions have been fled vexatiously only to drag on the rent control proceedings.
15. Therefore, unless it is declared by a competent court as per Section 50(1) of the Mental Health Act after proper adjudication, that the landlady is a mentally retarded person, it cannot be said that she is not entitled to institute the Rent Control Original Petitions.
16. In these circumstances, I do not find any defect or irregularity in the order passed by the authorities below. Therefore, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
17. Consequently, both the Miscellaneous Petitions are also dismissed.