Back
Madras High Court
RATNAM
Sreenivasan Chettiar - Appellant
Versus
R.M.Kalyani Ammal - Respondent
Decided On : 06/27/1980
TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT - SECTION 23 - RULE 15, 16 - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - POWER TO GRANT PERMISSION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IN PENDING APPEAL - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND RULES - COURT'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, challenging an eviction order passed against him by the Rent Controller. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to raise additional grounds of appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Appellate Authority has the power to grant permission to raise additional grounds in a pending appeal, as long as the appeal remains undisposed of. This power is part of the Appellate Authority's power to decide the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Rent Controller and is not an independent inherent power.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act has the power to grant permission to raise additional grounds in a pending appeal? 2. Whether the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, such as Order 41, Rule 2, which prohibits an appellant from urging or putting forth any ground of objection not set out in the memorandum of appeal without leave of Court, apply to an appeal before the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 23 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and Rules 15 and 16 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974, and found that there is no specific provision regarding the application of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code to the proceedings under the Act. 2. The court held that the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 23 of the Act is not a Court as normally understood and accepted, and consequently, the procedures of a civil Court cannot be applied to those authorities. 3. The court further held that Section 23 (3) of the Act enables the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal not only on grounds which have been raised before, but also on other grounds which may be raised later. 4. The court concluded that in the absence of any bar on a litigant analogous to Order 41, Rule 2, Civil P.C., such a power in the Appellate Authority is available.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the petitioner's application to raise additional grounds in support of his appeal, and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the application and permit the petitioner to put forth additional grounds in support of the appeal.
ORDER:- The point debated in this civil revision petition at the instance of the tenant who figures as the petitioner herein is, whether the Appellate Authority functioning under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder has powers to grant permission to raise additional grounds in a pending appeal. The respondent herein filed an application in R.C.O.P. No. 655 of 1977 against the petitioner under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act on the ground that she required the building in the occupation of the petitioner for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. The building, according to the respondent, is an old
one and consists of several tenements. Claiming that she had the means to put up the contruction and had also submitted a plan for the proposed building and that she required the building in the occupation of the petitioner for the immediate purpose of demolition and reconstruction of a new and a modern building in accordance with the plan submitted, the respondent prayed for an order of eviction against the petitioner giving an undertaking that the entire building will be demolished within three months from the date on which possession is taken.
2. That application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that since the building consists of several tenements some of which had already been sold to the tenants in occupation, it is not possible to demolish building and to construct a new building in the site. It was also the further case of the petitioner that the respondent negotiated for the sale of the respective tenements to the tenants including the petitioner and since the respondent wanted a very high price and the petitioner was unable to pay that amount, there was a demand for payment of higher rent which was not agreed to by the petitioner and hence the petitioner claimed that the application for eviction was filed with the oblique motive of securing an order for eviction against the petitioner. The petitioner further set up an agreement dated 9-4-1976, entered into between himself and the respondent by which he claimed that he had agreed to purchase the portion in his occupation wherein he is carrying on business and had also paid an advance of Rs. 3000. The buliding was also stated by the petitioner to be a strong one which does not require immediate demolition and reconstruction.
3. The learned Rent Controller (District Munsif) Madurai town, held on a consideration of the evidence of the Kariasthar of the respondent examined as P.W. 1, the submission of the plan and the undisputed means of the respondent and other circumstances, that the respondent bona fide required the premises in the occupation of the petitioner for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction. On this conclusion, an order for eviction was passed against the petitioner granting him two months' time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Principal subordinate Judge) Madurai, under Section 23 of the Act. In the Memorandum of appeal, the petitioner had set out the grounds of attack against the order of the Rent Controller. Realising that the plea that the sale agreement between the petitioner and the respondent had brought about a change in the jural relationship of landlord and tenant which existed before and that therefore
the respondent is not entitled to file an application for eviction, had not been specifically put forth, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application purporting to be under Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1974, praying to receive certain additional grounds of appeal in this regard filed by the the petitioner. The Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge) Madurai, by its order dated 11-6-1979) held that there is no provisi
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
