These Civil Revision Petition are filed against the order dated 13.3.2008 made in unnumbered Review Petition NO.Nil/2008 to review the order passed in IA.Nos.374 & 372/2007 in unnumbered RCAs passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Madurai.
2. The brief facts, which are essential for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, are as follows:-
The respondents in these Civil Revision Petitions are brothers and landlords of the eastern and western portions of the premises respectively at Door No.134, North Veli Street, Madurai Town. Originally one Hussain Sahib was the tenant and he died on 10.6.2003 and after his death, his son O.M.H.Bajudulhameed became the tenant. The tenant was carrying on seat cover business on a monthly rent of Rs.2500/- on each portion payable according to English Calendar month. As the tenant committed default in payment of rent, the respective landlords filed eviction petition on the ground of willful default in RCOP.No.23/2005 and RCOP.NO.21/2005 respectively and the petitioner/tenant contested the said petitions by filing a counter. Pending the said eviction petitions, the landlords filed a petition under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act ((herein after referred to as the Act) to direct the tenant to pay a sum of Rs.65000/- towards arrears of rent in IA.No.163/2006 and IA.No.162/2006 respectively. The said petitions were resisted by the tenant contending inter alia that an application for deposit of rent is pending before the Principal District Munsif, Madurai.
3. Even prior to the filing of applications under Section 11(4) of the Act, the petitioner has moved the Rent Controller by filing a petition under Section 8(5) of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rent with the court and the respondents in both the Civil Revision Petitions have filed their written objection to the said petitions. In the mean while, the petitioner has filed Tr.OP.NO.1/2006 before the Principal Sub Court, Madurai to tranfer the RCOP.No.21/2005 and RCOP.No23/2005 from the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town to the file of the Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town to try jointly along with the RCOP.No.136/2005 and the said Tr.OP has been allowed on 14.7.2006.
4. But, by order dated 7.12.2006 in IA.No.163/2006 and 162/2006, the learned Judge passed an order directing the tenant to deposit Rs.65000/- each to the respective landlords on or before 9.1.2007 and continue to pay the monthly rent, failing which an eviction order would be passed against the tenant. As the tenant failed to deposit the sum as directed, the learned Principal District Munsif directed to stop all further proceedings and ordered eviction granting two months time by order dated 10.1.2007.
5. It is important to note here that despite the order passed in Tr.OP.No.1/2006 to try RCOP.NOs.21 and 23/2005 jointly together with RCOP.No.136/2005, the learned Principal District Munsif has passed orders in contrary to the order passed in Tr.OP.No.1/2006.
6. Pursuant to the eviction order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif for not complying with the conditional order, the landlords have filed eviction petition and the same is pending.
7. In the mean while, the petitioner has filed an appeal against the eviction order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the learned Principal District Munsif in unnumbered RCA with petitions to condone the delay of 123 days in IA.No.373/2007 and IA.No.374/2007 respectively before the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
8. The petitioner has stated that he applied for certified copy of the order dated 10.1.2007 on the same day and stamps were called for by the office on 20.3.2007 and as his Advocate's Clerk was on leave, they could not submit the stamps and hence, it was struck off. Again on 4.4.2007, they filed a fresh copy application and the copies were granted to him on 13.4.2007. He has further stated that he was suffering from jaundice from 7.4.2007 to 2.5.2007 and therefore, he could not contact his counsel and in the mean time, summer vacation intervened and immediately on the reopening date i.e. on 4.6.2007 he had filed the appeal, thus there was a delay of 123 days and prayed the court to condone the aforesaid delay.
9. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has dismissed the said petitions as against which the petitioner had filed review application on the ground that there are apparent mistakes committed in the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, but the learned judge dismissed those petitions on the ground that review application is not maintainable and the remedy available to the petitioner is only under Section 25 of the Act to file revision. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has filed these Civil Revision Petitions.
10. The findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that he cannot review his order is not to be interfered with. However, if it is shown that the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority is illegal and improper, this court can interfere.
11. In the case of Somaiah and another Vs. S.P.Vasudevan [1996-1- LW-407], this court has held that under Section 25 of the Act, the High Court can scrutinise the propriety of the finding of a fact. The limit of such scrutiny is only that of appreciation and weighing of evidence and coming to the different conclusion if the same is needed. It has been held that if the finding is perverse, the High Court can interfere under Section 25 of the Act.
12. In the case of Dorai Rajan Vs. Palaniappa Chettiar [1967-2-MLJ- 286], it has been held that when the decision of the lower court on the proved facts showed that the conclusion arrived at did not properly follow, this court can interfere with the said findings.
13. In the present case, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has committed an error in noting down the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner as 4.7.2007 instead of 4.6.2007 and on the wrong assumption of date, he has come to the conclusion that the petitioner/ tenant has not filed the appeal immediately on the reopening date and therefore there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. The relevant passage in his order is extracted below:-
@,e;epiyapy; ePjpkd;w'; nfhiltpLKiw tplg;gl;Ltpl;lJ vd;Wk;/ mjdhy; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;Wk;. gpd;g[ ePjpkd;wk; jpwe;jt[ld; jhf;fy; bra;jjhft[k; kDjhuh; jug;gp fl;rp mike;Js;sJ/ Mdhy; nky;KiwaPl;L kDf;fis Ma;t[ bra;fpd;wnghJ. mit 4/7/2007 ,y; jhd; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sd/ gpd;g[ mtw;wpy; Fiwfs; ,Ug;gijf; Rl;of;fhl;o jpUg;gg;gl;Ls;sd vd;gJk;. Mitfs; 14/11/2007 ,y; jhd; nfhg;g[f;F vLf;ff;gl;Ls;sd vd;gJk; bjhpatUfpwJ/ vdnt nfhiltpLKiw Koe;jt[ld; ePjpkd;wk; jpwe;jt[ld; $Pd; khjk; Kjy; thuj;jpy; ,e;j nky;KiwaPl;L kDf;fs;jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy/ Mdhy; nfhiltpLKiwf;Fg;gpwF ePjpkd;wk; jpwe;j gpwF Rkhh; 1 khj fhyk; brd;w gpwFjhd; ,e;j kDf;ffis jhf;fy; br;aJs;shh;/ ,e;epiyapy; 13/4/2007 Kjy; 4/7/2007 tiu cs;s ,ilg;gl;l fhyj;jpy; ,e;j nky;KiwaPl;L kDf;fisj;jhf;fy; bra;ahjjw;F jdf;F k rl;fhkhiy neha; Vw;gl;lJ jhd; fhuzk; vd;W kDjhuh; Twpa[s;shh;/ mjw;F Mjuthf kUj;Jtr; rhd;W xd;Wk; tH';fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mjid Ma;t[ bra;fpd;wnghJ. mth; 7/4/2007 Kjy; 2/5/2007 tiu rpfpr;ir vLj;Jf;bfhz;ljhf fhzg;gLfpwJ/ mjd;gpwF rpy ehl;fs; Xa;t[ vLj;jpUe;jhYk; Tl nfhiltpLKiwf;F gpd; ePjpkd;wk; jpwe;j cld; $^d; khjj;jpy; Kjy; ntiy ehspy; ,e;j kDitj; jhf;fy; bra;jpUf;fyhk;/ Mdhy; 4/7/2007 md;Wjhd; ,e;j kD jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt 10/1/2007,y; t/g/vz;/163-2006,y; ,Wjp cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;ggl;l ehspy; ,Ue;J ,e;j nky;KiwaPl;L kDf;fisj; jhf;fy; bra;j 4/7/2007 tiu cs;s fhy jhkjj;jpw;f kDjhuh; jug;gpy; brhy;ypa[s;ss fhuz';fs; jpUg;jpfukhf ,y;iy/@
14. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition in IA.NO.372/2007 and IA.NO.373/2007, the petitioner has specifically averred that the appeal was filed on the first day of reopening after vacation and the same is not disputed by the landlords in their counter, which is extracted in the order dated 11.12.2008 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is not on correct finding of fact and had he noted the date of filing of the appeal by the petitioner correctly, then his view would have been different from that of the one which he passed.
15. It must be pointed out that under the wide sweep of the revisional jurisdiction, the court has a dual role to fulfill, one as court of review examining the decision of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller and the other as that of the superior court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Controller.
16. It is pertinent to point that the review petitioner has deposited Rs.1,50,000/- towards arrears of rent pursuant to the conditional order passed by this court in the stay application.
17. In view of the reasons stated above, it becomes necessary to interfere with the findings of the Rent Control Appellate Authority and the order dated 11.2.2008 in IA.No.374 and 373/2007 passed in unnumbered RCAs are set aside and those applications stands allowed. The Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to number the appeals and dispose of the appeals, after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
18. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.
Srcm To:
The Principal Sub Judge, Madurai