The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the High Court to intervene under Article 227 to prevent abuse of power and meet the ends of justice in rent control matters.

1. This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.06.2009, being passed in M.P.No.262 of 2009 in R.C.A.No.213 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. The petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P.No.1399 of 2007, that was filed by the petitioner under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act XXIII of 1963 (herein after referred to as Act), on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from December 2005 to February 2007.

3. As per the decretal order, dated 24.04.2009, the learned Rent Controller allowed the Rent Control Original Petition and ordered eviction of the respondent / tenant, on the ground of wilful default, time for eviction was given two months, on 24.04.2009. Aggrieved by which, the respondent herein preferred Rent Control Appeal, wherein the respondent / tenant filed a petition, seeking stay of the operation of the order and decretal order of eviction, dated 24.04.2009 passed in the R.C.O.P pending disposal of the R.C.A.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as per order, dated 19.06.2009, the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted conditional stay directing the respondent / tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/-, being the arrears of rent on or before 15.07.2009. In the said docket order, the Court below has specifically stated that the tenant agreed to deposit the said amount, hence, the order was passed, however, on 15.07.2009, the respondent / tenant was called absent. The conditional order, dated 19.06.2009 was also not complied with by the petitioner therein, hence, the matter was adjourned to 06.08.2009.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the copy of the docket orders passed by the court below on 19.06.2009, 15.07.2009, 06.08.2009, 07.08.2009, 21.08.2009, 04.09.2009, 07.09.2009, 010. 2009, 210. 2009, 111. 2009, 211. 2009, 211. 2009 and argued that though the order, dated 19.06.2009 was not complied with by the tenant, who is the respondent herein, the Court below suo moto modified the order and reduced the amount to be deposited as Rs.10,000/- by 07.08.2009 and as per the order, dated 07.08.2009, directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.65,000/- out of the aforesaid Rs.75,000/-on or before 21.08.2009. In spite of non-compliance of the order, dated 19.06.2009, the stay was extended up to 21.08.2009. It was argued that despite the fact that the conditional order, dated 19.06.2009 was not complied with by the respondent / tenant, then and there, without assigning any reason, the Court below has adjourned the petition on various dates, by extending the stay. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the docket orders being passed by the Court below extending time are against Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act and also an abuse of process of the Court, hence, to meet the ends of justice, the revision petition has been filed by the petitioner / landlord under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Per contra, Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / tenant submitted that the Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable and the learned counsel for the respondent / tenant submitted that there is no final order has been passed in the petition and further, the petitioner cannot maintain the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, without filing revision petition by invoking Section 25 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / tenant also contended that there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as landlord and tenant. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, the respondent had paid