Maintainability of appeal filed against order declining to hold preliminary enquiry.

ORDER :- These civil revision petitions, at the instance of the landlords, are directed against the common order of the Appellate Authority (II Judge. Court of Small Causes). Madras in R. C. As. 66 and 67 of 1982. arising out of M. Ps. 361 and 256 of 1980 respectively in H.R.C. 3643 of 1979 on the file of the Rent Controller (XII Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. In that proceeding, the landlord prayed for an order of eviction against the respondent in these civil revision petitions and one Rajangam under S.10 (3) (a) (iii) (wrongly stated as S.10 (3) (a) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.18 of 1960, as amended by Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioner claimed that he is the landlord in respect of the premises bearing old door No.21 new door No. 30 Millers Road, and that the respondent was a tenant in occupation thereof, the tenancy being for non-residential purposes of carrying on a business under the name and style of 'Sivasakthi Unavu Vidhuthi'. The petitioner stated that he was carrying on his business in a rented building at door No. 10/31. New door No. 86 Millers Road. having a godown at Nos. 34, 42 and 44. Millers St., Kilpauk. Madras. and that he did not own any building of his own. The further case of the petitioner was that he required the premises in the occupation of the respondent for his own use and occupation and the respondent through one Soundararaian and the respondent. though agreed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises, did not do so. The named of Rajangam, according to the petitioner, was inserted in the sales tax register as proprietor with a view to create difficulties and he was also impleaded as second respondent in the application for eviction so that any order passed may be binding on him as well.

2. In the counter-statement filed by the respondent, the contended that the site over which the building stood belonged to Shree Gnanaprakasa Desika Mutt, Kancheepuram, and the Mutt leased out the site in 1926 to one Lakshmi Ammal, who put up a superstructure and thereafter settled the property in favour of one Kamalammal. Thereafter, Kamalammal continued to be the tenant under the Mutt and on 7th May 1979. Kamalammal sold the superstructure with the leasehold right to the petitioner. The respondent stated that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner was not valid in law as Kamalammal had no right to transfer the leasehold right. The further contention of the respondent was that on coming to know that the Mutt was the owner of the site, he approached the Mutt with a view to secure a sale of the site and paid an advance towards the same. The respondent thus attempted to raise a cloud over the title of the petitioner with reference to the property in his occupation. In an additional counter filed by the respondent, he pleaded that the assignment of the rights of a tenant in favour of the petitioner was invalid in law under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act and the petitioner did not act any right or title as a landlord. Besides. the respondent put forth a plea that S.10 (3) (a) (i) of the Act had no application and the non-payment of the court-fee in so far as the relief of eviction prayed for against Rajangam was concerned would be fatal to the maintainability of the application for eviction. Certain other defenses were also raised by the respondent which need not be adverted to in extenso for the purpose of these civil revision petitions. Suffice it to say that Rajangam, who was impleaded as the second respondent in H.R.C. 3643 of 1979 also raised the plea that he is only the brother-in-law of the respondent herein, that he was managing the hotel and assisting the respondent that there was no sublease in his favour, that he is an unnecessary party to the application for eviction and that the application for eviction should therefore be dismissed. In the reply filed by the petition