The civil revision petitioner/respondent has preferred this civil revision petition praying this Court for issuance of a direction to the appellate authority, viz., the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, to dispose of the pending R.C.A.No.8 of 2007, within a reasonable time to be fixed by this Court.
2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that pendency of R.C.A.No.8 of 2007 after completion of the arguments on the side of the respondent/appellant and reply by the petitioner/respondent is unwarranted and the pendency of R.C.A.No.8 of 2007 without any final order being passed thereto causes serious prejudice to the revision petitioner/respondent and that there is no justifiable or reasonable cause for the delay in disposing of R.C.A.No.8 of 2007 by the appellate authority, viz., the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam and when all submissions and counter submissions have been over, then there is no need to keep the R.C.A.No.8 of 2007 any further on the file of the learned appellate authority and therefore, he prays for allowing the present Civil Revision petition in the interest of justice.
3. To avoid an avoidable delay, this Court dispenses with the issuance of notice to the respondent on the facts and circumstances projected before this Court.
4. This Court by its order dated 06.04.2009, has directed the Registry to obtain the remarks of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, (the appellate authority) through fax as to why R.C.A.No.8 of f2007 is pending for a long time for passing orders and also the details in regard to the pendency of the same till date and the Registry has been directed to receive the remarks and to place the same before this Court on 13.04.2009 and that the Registry has placed the remarks of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dated 08.04.2009.
5. In the remarks of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, dated 08.04.2009, sent by fax, it is mentioned that 'R.C.A. 8/07 was taken on file on 03.10.2007 and posted to 30.11.2007 and on 30.11.2007, Mr.S.Kothandaraman, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent and posted for receipt of Lower Court records on 12.12.2007, 09.01.2008 and 22.02.2008 and Lower Court records received on 09.06.2008 and posted for arguments on 23.06.2008 and adjourned to 21.07.2008, 04.08.2008, 20.08.2008 and 28.08.2008 and on 28.08.2008, arguments were heard and reserved by my predecessor and subsequently, the case was also suo motto reopened on 09.09.2008 by my predecessor, since he was transferred and after taking charge on 09.09.2008, R.C.A has come up for hearing on 29.09.2008 for clarification and for the same purpose, it has been posted to 17.10.2008 and 06.11.2008 and on 06.11.2008, both side written arguments were filed and heard and posted to 28.11.2008 for reply arguments and adjourned to 20.02.2009 and 25.02.2009 and on 25.02.2009, Mr.C.M.Kesavamurthy, Advocate, filed change of Vakalat for respondent and posted to 19.02.2009 for reply arguments and adjourned to 08.04.2009 and now, the same is posted to 08.04.2009 for reply arguments.
6. It is also ascertained by the Registry that R.C.A.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, (the appellate authority), Kumbakonam, has been posted for orders on 02.06.2009.
7. The said R.C.A.No.8 of 2007 has been taken on file on 03.10.2007 and has been posted for hearing on 30.11.2007. It transpires that on 09.06.2008, the lower Court records have been received by the appellate authority and R.C.A.No.8 of 2007 has been posted for arguments on 23.06.2008 and subsequently, from 23.06.2008 to 28.08.2008, the matter has been posted for arguments. On 28.08.2008, in the notes paper in R.C.A.No.8 of 2007, it is endorsed as 'Arguments, Judgment Reserved.'. After suo motu reopening the matter on 09.09.2008, the matter has been posted for clarification till 06.11.2008. On 06.11.2008, both sides have filed the written arguments and the matter has been heard and posted to 28.11.2008 for reply arguments and on 28.11.2008, the matter has been directed to be called on 11.12.2008 and that on 11.12.2008, the learned Judge is on R.H (Restricted Holiday) and the matter has been reposted to 30.12.2008 and on 30.12.2008, the learned Judge has been on O.D (Other Duty) and the matter has been reposted to 12.02.2009 and again, on 12.02.2009, the matter has been posted for reply arguments on 20.02.2009.
8. It is pertinent to make a mention that the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, in the letter dated 08.04.2009, addressed to the Registry of this Court, has stated that the matter has been adjourned from 20.02.2009 to 25.02.2009 for reply arguments and on 25.02.2009, Mr.C.M.Kesavamurthy, Advocate, has filed a change of Vakalat for the respondent and the matter has been posted to 19.03.2009 for reply arguments and adjourned to 08.04.2009 for reply arguments.
9. It is to be borne in mind that Section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, enjoins that 'every order passed by a Controller under this Act shall be pronounced in open Court on the date on which the case finally heard or on some future date of which due notice shall be given to the parties.'
10. This Court aptly recalls the observation made by this Court in the decision in Sivaprakasam and others v. Radhakrishnan and another reported in 1975 T.L.N.J 328 at page 329, wherein it is inter alia held that '... In the Court's opinion the pronouncement of the judgment in the House Rent Control Appeals, after notice to the parties, would amount to communication to the petitioners, etc.'
11. One cannot also loose sight of the fact that merely because the appellate authority has all the powers of the Rent Controller, it cannot convert itself into a Rent Controller.
12. Added further, it is needless for this Court to make a mention that the functionaries under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, or authorities with jurisdiction to enquire into the applications for eviction, fixation of fair rent etc., and notwithstanding that the entire procedure applicable to the civil Courts cannot be applied to those authorities, yet in the considered opinion of this Court, the rules of equity, fair play and good conscience shall be invoked to relieve the difficulties in a statue like the present one.
13. It is true that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, is a self-contained Code. As a matter of fact, the judicial decorum requires that an order to be passed by the appropriate functionary under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as per Section 20 of the Act, has to be passed on the day on which the case has been finally heard or on some future date on which due notice shall be given to the parties.
14. In the instant case, the judgment in R.C.A.No.8 of 2007 has been reserved by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, (the predecessor of the present appellate authority) on 28.08.2008, but he has reopened the matter suo motu for clarification. But, the present appellate authority, viz., the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, has taken charge on 09.09.2008 and on 06.11.2008, the written arguments have been filed and the matter has been heard and posted to 28.11.2008 for reply arguments and from 28.11.2008 till 08.04.2009, the matter has been adjourned for hearing the reply arguments notwithstanding the fact that a change of Vakalat on the side of the respondent has been filed on 25.02.2009 before the appellate authority. As on date, R.C.A.No.8 of 2007 has been posted for orders on 02.06.2009.
15. It is well settled principle of law that where hearing is completed, the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of a Court or authority that an order/judgment is completed to be delivered, after hearing.
16. In short, this Court opines that an unreasonable delay between the hearing of the arguments and the delivery of orders/judgments unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, is highly undesirable, even when the written arguments are submitted. Admittedly, in the instant case on hand, both sides have submitted the written arguments as early as on 06.11.2008. In the present case, this Court is unable to notice any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in the appellate authority not pronouncing or delivering the orders in appeal with promptitude.
17. It is apt to point out that a long delay in delivery of judgment is sufficient to set aside the judgment under appeal without examining the case on merits as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kanhaiyalal v. Anup Kumar reported in AIR 2003 SC 689 (691). However, in civil cases, judgment must be pronounced within two months from the date of conclusion of hearing in the case as per the decision in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2001 SC 3173.
18. Unfortunately, in R.C.A.No.8 of 2007, the arguments have been heard on 28.08.2008 and it is endorsed that 'Judgment has been reserved", but till date, for one reason or other, the orders have not been passed and now, the matter is posted for orders on 02.06.2009.
19. Be that as it may, when the orders are passed by the functionaries under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, with promptitude avoiding unnecessary and inordinate delay, then certainly, the said act will inspire the confidence of litigant public in our justice delivery system, in the considered opinion of this Court.
20. Therefore, on conspectus of an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral manner and in the light of the detailed discussions mentioned supra and further, taking note of the fact that the R.C.O.P. is of the year 1999 and the R.C.A is of the year 2007, this Court as a matter of prudence on the basis of equity, fair play and good conscience, directs the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Kumbakonam, to dispose of the R.C.A.No.8 of 2007 on or before 02.06.2009 after notice to the parties/pleaders without procrastinating the matter any further and to give a complete quietus to the matter in issue and to report compliance without fail.
21. With these observations and directions, the present civil revision petition is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
rsb To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, (Appellate Authority), Kumbakonam.
2.The Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, (To watch and report).