Maintainability of the revision u/s 115 C.P.C. filed to High Court.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. The tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1973 is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition which is directed against the order dismissing his application in I.A. No. 3 of 1979 praying for the setting aside of an ex parte order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of costs as directed. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a tenant within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (as amended by Act XXIII of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 16th December, 1978, an ex parte order of eviction was passed against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 3 of 1979 in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1973 to set aside--the ex parte order of eviction and on 8th July, 1980, the Rent Controller passed a conditional order setting aside the ex parte order of eviction directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 25 as costs to the landlord respondent on or before 16th July, 1980. However, the petitioner did not pay the costs within the time granted by the Rent Controller with the result I. A. No. 3 of 1979 was dismissed on 17th July, 1980, as the costs had not been paid. It is the correctness of the order that is challenged by the tenant in the course of the civil revision petition preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Even before the civil revision petition was numbered, an objection was raised by the office as regards the maintainability of the civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in matters falling under the Act. However, on the strength of a decision of this Court, reported in Arunachalam v. Lt. Col. Srinivasan (1968) 1 M.L.J. 435. Justice Nainar Sundaram was persuaded to direct the office to number the civil revision petition subject to the question of the maintainability of the civil revision petition being decided by the learned Judge before whom the matter is ultimately posted for disposal after hearing both parties comprehensively. The learned Judge has also directed that the question of the maintainability may be heard first before the merits are gone info and that it will not be open to the petitioner to voice forth a grievance that the revision having been admitted should not be thrown out on the ground of non-maintainability at a later stage. Though a case of this kind can be easily disposed of by a consideration of the merits thereof, yet out of respect to the learned Judge who had directed the question of maintainability of the civil revision petition to be decided in the course of the final hearing, that matter is being gone into.

3. On the question of maintainability of the civil revision petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner strongly relies upon the decision in Arunachalam v. Lt. Col. Srinivasan (1968) 1 M.L.J. 435, and contends that a civil revision as has been filed in the present case is not only maintainable, but competent as well. Before considering the question whether the civil revision petition is maintainable, it is necessary to notice the important and relevant provisions of the Act briefly touching upon appeals and revisions under the Act. Sections 10 and 14 of the Act enable a landlord to secure an order for eviction against a tenant if he satisfies the Rent Controller that grounds mentioned therein are available to him to secure such an order. Under Section 23 of the Act, provision for the preferring of an appeal against the order passed by a Pent Controller has been made. Section 25 of the Act enables a person aggrieved by an order of the appellate authority to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court in order that the correctness, regularity, legality or propriety of any decision or order passed may be considered and appropriate orders either modifying, annulling, reversing or remitting for reconsideration can be passed. A consideration of the provisions of the Act would, therefore, prima facie disclose that apart from the remedies provided for under th