This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking rejection of R.C.O.P.No.5 ofg 2016 filed under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
2.According to the petitioner, he was a tenant under one Subbiah, who died and the Petitioner herein is the first respondent in the R.C.O.P and the said Subbiah has also left behind three sons and two daughters as legal representatives apart from the Petitioner. In all, there are six legal representatives. The tenant has approached the Trial Court under Section 9(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control)Act, seeking to deposit of the rent. The learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that as the R.C.O.P is not maintainable and the tenant should have deposited the rent before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned and thereafter only, he could report such deposit to the Rent Controller.
3.According to the Petitioner, the said exercise has not been carried out. Therefore, the Petition in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2016 is not maintainable. I do not think that I can go into the said question at this stage. The Petitioner has not even file a counter in the R.C.O.P. It is not known as to whether the tenant had deposited the amount with the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned. These questions are disputed questions of facts, which has to be gone into at the time of trial. I do not find any reason to reject the R.C.O.P invoking the power conferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India at this stage. Thus the revision fails.
4.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is open to the Petitioner to raise all the defense before the Rent Controller. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.
To
1.The Rent Controller-cum- District Munsif, Virudhunagar.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..