IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.10.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.PD.No.3148 of 2007 and M.P.No.1 of 2007 1. K.Shanthi 2. E.Kesavan ... Petitioners Vs 1. K.Guru @ Gurumoorthy 2. K.Manjula ... Respondents This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, against the Order dated 09.04.2007 passed in M.P.No.931 of 2006 in R.C.A.No.826 of 2006 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Petitioners : M/s.G.Ravishankar & P.Balasubramani For Respondents : N.Umapathy O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 09.04.2007 passed in M.P.No.931 of 2006 in R.C.A.No.826 of 2006 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2. The respondents in M.P.No.931 of 2006 in R.C.A.No.826 of 2006 are the Revision petitioners before this court.
3. The brief facts which are necessary for the purpose of disposing of the above revision petition are as under:
The Revision petitioners herein filed R.C.O.P.No.854 of 2006 against the respondents 1 and 2 herein under Sec.10(2)(i) of the Tamilnadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction. The respondents herein were set exparte in R.C.O.P.No.854 of 2006 and therefore, they filed a petition to set aside the ex-parte order dated 19.7.2006 in M.P.No.395 of 2006. M.P.No.395 of 2006 was allowed by the Rent Controller on condition that the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs.250/- towards cost on or before 17.8.2006. The cost was not paid on or before 17.8.2006 and consequently M.P.No.395 of 2006 was dismissed for non compliance of the conditional order and R.C.O.P.No.854 of 2006 was posted for exparte evidence. The respondents, therefore, filed two petitions, one under Sec.148 of C.P.C., praying to extend the time for payment of cost and another to dismiss the R.C.O.P.No.854 of 2006 itself, as the respondents have purchased the properties from the revision petitioners and therefore, there is no landlord-tenant relationship between them. The petition filed to dismiss the R.C.O.P., as not maintainable, was given the S.R.No.16988 of 2006 and the petition filed under Sec.148 to extend the time for payment of cost, was given the S.R.No.17264 of 2006. On 24.8.2006, the Rent Controller dismissed both the petitions as not maintainable and proceeded to take exparte evidence partly and thereafter adjourned the R.C.O.P. to 29.8.2006. The respondents filed an appeal in RC.A.No.826 of 2006, by filing a dispense-with petition against the order, filed by them under Sec.148 C.P.C. to extend the time for payment of the cost. While filing the appeal in R.C.A.No.826 of 2006, the respondents wrongly mentioned the M.P.SR.No.16988 of 2006 instead of M.P.SR.No.17264 of 2006. On coming to know of this lapse, the respondents fled M.P.No.931 of 2006 to amend the S.R. number in the prayer column, in R.C.A.No.826 of 2006, as M.P.SR.No.17264 of 2006, in R.C.O.P.No.854 of 2006 instead of S.R.No.16988 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.854 of 2006. This was opposed by the revision petitioners by filing a counter affidavit wherein they have contended that the amendment petition filed by the respondents would amount to substitution of another order as the order made in M.P.SR.No.17264 of 2006 has reached its finality. It was further contended by the revision petitioners that the R.C.O.P.No.854 of 2006 itself was allowed by the Rent Controller on 5.9.2006 itself and therefore, the amendment petition should be dismissed. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, by order dated 9.4.2007, allowed M.P.No.931 of 2006 and aggrieved by the same, the above revision petition has been filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also gone through the documents filed in support of their submissions.
5. The only question that arises for consideration in the above Civil Revision petition is whether the Rent Control Appellate Authority is correct in allowing the amendment petition filed by the respondents herein. A perusal of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority will show that the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the appeal filed in R.C.A.No.826 of 2006 is only against the order rejecting the petition filed in M.P.SR.No.17264 of 2006 to extend the time for the payment of cost.
6. I have also gone through the grounds of appeal filed by the respondents herein in R.C.A.No.826 of 2006 and I am satisfied that the intention of the respondents herein is only to challenge the order of the Rent Controller rejecting their petition to extend time for payment of cost. In fact, ground No.3 in the R.C.A. is that, the Rent Controller ought to have extended the time in complying with the conditional order passed in M.P.No.396 of 2006 in view of the ruling of the Division Bench of this court reported in 2006(3) C.T.C. 418 (Gowri Ammal Vs Murugan and others). In ground No.5, it is stated that if the conditional order was extended, no great hardship would have been caused to the respondents and on the other hand, if the conditional order was not extended, the appellants would be put to irreparable loss and damages. A similar contention was raised in ground No.6 also. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority allowing the amendment petition filed by the respondents herein in M.P.No.931 of 2006.
7. Now, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that against the exparte order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.854 of 2006, the respondents herein have filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.981 of 2006 and the same is pending before the very same appellate Authority, ie., the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
8. If that being so, the Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to hear both the R.C.A.No.981 of 2006 and 826 of 2006 together and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2007 filed for stay is also dismissed.
The VII Judge,
Small Causes Court,
[ PRV / 16088 ]