Heard Mr.R.A.Mohanram, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.
2.This revision petition is filed against the concurrent findings of the Rent Control Tribunal in R.C.O.P.No.372 of 1995, dated 17.08.2005 and Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.16 of 2006, dated 04.08.2009, in the application filed for fixation of fair rent.
3.This revision petition, though presented in the year 2009, with a delay of 7 days and assigned as CRP(MD)No.SR40939 of 2009, till date, the revision petitioner has not shown any interest to serve notices on the parties. Mean while, the third respondent died and application to bring Legal Representatives of the third respondent was filed and the same was allowed by this Court in CMP(MD)No.4355 of 2016 dated 23.03.2017.
4.Perusal of the notes paper reveals that this Court has permitted the revision petitioner to serve notices on the respondents within a period of three weeks and incase of any failure, this petition will be dismissed without any further reference to the Court. The said order was passed on 15.11.2012. On that day itself, the Court has also recorded the death of R3 and petition was abated as against R3.
5.Since 15.11.2012 to till date, the respondents 1 and 2 were not yet been served. The Memo filed by the revision petitioner on 24.10.2016, indicates that one, Rani has received the notice, on behalf of the Legal Representatives of the third respondent in CMP.No.4355 of 2016. In the memo, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has also stated that R1 has vacated the premises and handed over the possession. Therefore no notice is necessary to him and he has given up. In respect of R2, the postal track consignment extract indicating item delivered has also been furnished.
6.When the matter was taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought time to take substitute service for R2, who according to the revision petitioner, was the erstwhile Trustee of the petitioner's trust, Dhamaram Seetharamier Charitable Trust, Madurai.
7.The perusal of the orders passed by the Courts below and the grounds raised in this revision petition, this Court finds that the matter centers around the status of the petitioner's trust, whether it is a private trust or public trust. Both the Courts below have held that it is a public trust and therefore Rent Control Act is not applicable.
8.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the status of the trust has already been settled in a civil suit in O.S.No.1235 of 1980 and therefore the finding of the Tribunal and the Appellate Court regarding the status of the trust is erroneous.
9.The relief sought in the main petition R.C.O.P.No.372 of 1995 laid by the revision petitioner is for fixation of fair rent, under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. Both the Courts below have dismissed the petition without fixing fair rent. Now the tenant has also vacated. The main dispute does not survive, on the memo filed by the revision petitioner after giving up his case against R1, who is the tenant.
10.Since the matter has become infructuous, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay and to keep this matter alive on board. If the status of the trust has already been decided in the Civil Suit in O.S.No.1235 of 1980, the revision petitioner can take advantage of that in subsequent proceedings or in any proceedings pending, without prejudice to the observations made by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in this Case.
11.With these observations, C.M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2010 is dismissed. Consequently, C.R.P.(MD).No.SR40939 of 2009 is closed. No costs.
To The Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai..