Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
S.S. SUBRAMANI
S.P. Manoharan & Another
Versus
Zomila Beevi & Others
C.R.P. No. 2786 of 1999 and C.M.P. No. 15747 of 1999
Decided On :Decided On : 22-10-1999
RES JUDICATA - SECTION 11(4) OF THE TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE & RENT CONTROL) ACT - APPLICATION FOR EVICTION - RENT ARREARS - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT - REAGITATION OF DECIDED ISSUE - FINALITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS - PUBLIC POLICY AND PRIVATE JUSTICE - INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - MERGER OF ORDERS - CONCLUSIVENESS OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS - VEXATIOUS LITIGATION - FRIVOLOUS PROCEEDINGS - DUTY OF COURT TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS.
Fact of the Case:
Tenants failed to pay rent for several years, leading to an eviction petition. They filed an application to set aside the eviction order, which was allowed. However, they remained ex parte and another eviction order was passed. They again filed an application to set aside the order, which was also allowed. The landlord then filed an application under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, directing the tenants to deposit rent arrears. The tenants failed to comply, and the eviction petition was allowed. The tenants filed a revision petition, and the appellate authority directed them to deposit rent arrears. They failed to comply, and the appeal was dismissed. The tenants then filed another application to set aside the order in the eviction petition, which was allowed by the Rent Controller. The landlord appealed, and the appellate authority held that the tenants' application was an abuse of process and that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to restore it. The tenants filed a revision petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tenants' application to set aside the order in the eviction petition was an abuse of process and that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to restore it. The court also held that the tenants' attempt to relitigate the issue of rent arrears, which had already been decided in the appeal, was barred by res judicata and amounted to an abuse of process.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenants' application to set aside the order in the eviction petition was an abuse of process? 2. Whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to restore the tenants' application? 3. Whether the tenants' attempt to relitigate the issue of rent arrears was barred by res judicata? 4. Whether the tenants' attempt to relitigate the issue of rent arrears amounted to an abuse of process?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the tenants' application to set aside the order in the eviction petition was an abuse of process because they had repeatedly failed to comply with court orders to deposit rent arrears and had shown no genuine intention to pay the rent. 2. The court held that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to restore the tenants' application because the issue of rent arrears had already been decided in the appeal and the order in the appeal had merged with the order in the eviction petition. 3. The court held that the tenants' attempt to relitigate the issue of rent arrears was barred by res judicata because the issue had already been decided in the appeal and the order in the appeal was final and conclusive. 4. The court held that the tenants' attempt to relitigate the issue of rent arrears amounted to an abuse of process because it was a vexatious attempt to relitigate an issue that had already been decided.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and held that the order of the appellate authority was correct.
Tenants in R.C.O.P. 15 of 1992 on the file of District Munsif/Rent Controller, Thanjavur are the Revision Petitioners herein.
2. Landlords filed an application for eviction on the ground that the tenants have defaulted in payment of rent, the rent being Rs. 450/-. It is alleged in the eviction petition filed in the year 1992 that the tenant has committed wilful default from the month of September, 1990 and till eviction petition was filed, no rent was paid.
3. In the counter statement, tenants denied having committed default in payment of rent. According to them, they have paid the rent in lump and those amounts have not been given credit to and therefore, they are not liable to be dispossessed as wilful defaulters.
4. On 27.12.1992, due to the absence of tenants, an ex parte order of eviction was passed. An application was filed to have the same set aside and the same was allowed. After restoring the eviction petition, again the tenants remained ex parte and on 12.12.1998 another order of eviction was passed. An application was filed to have the same set aside and the same was also allowed by the Rent Controller. After restoring the eviction petition for the second time, landlord filed an application in I.A. 19 of 1997 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act. By that time, rent arrears had accumulated to more than Rs. 34,000/-. Notice of application was given to the tenants and the matter was being adjourned from time to time. Finally, on 21.4.1997, Rent Controller directed the tenants to deposit the arrears of rent on or before 28.4.1997. It has also directed that in case the order is not complied with, eviction petition will have to be allowed. The case was adjourned to 29.4.1997. Till that date, no arrears of rent was paid. Consequently, eviction petition itself was allowed on the ground of default in payment of rent.
5. To set aside the order in IA. 19 of 1997, revision petitioners filed I A. 71 of 1997 alleging that he was not in station at the time when the case was posted. After filing the said application, he also took the matter in appeal against the main order of eviction as RCA 12 of 1997. Before appellate authority, landlords again filed an application in IA. 42 of 1997 under Section 11(4) of the Act. By that time, the rent arrears have arisen to more than Rs. 42,000/-. In I.A. 42 of 1997, the rent arrears was inclusive of the period for which IA. 19 of 1997 was filed. Since the tenant had grievance that IA. 19 of 1997 was passed without hearing him, appellate authority thought it fit to hold an enquiry and finally came to the conclusion that the tenant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 46,110/- as rent arrears and the same was directed to be deposited on or before 16.9.1998. The amount was not paid and consequently, I.A. 42 of 1997 in RCA 12 of 1997 was allowed. Further consequence was that RCA 12 of 1997 filed by revision petitioner was dismissed. The order is dated 4.9.1998. The same has become final.
6. While narrating facts, I said that IA. 71 of 1997 was filed by revision petitioners to set aside the orders in IA. 19 of 1997. The same was kept pending while RCA 12 of 1997 was being heard. After disposal of R.C.A. 12 of 1997, revision petitioners wanted IA. 71 of 1997 to be heard. On 16.10.1999, Rent Controller without assigning any reason allowed that application on condition that tenants should deposit a sum of Rs. 250/- to set aside IA. 19 of 1997. Before Rent Controller, judgment in RCA 12 of 1997 and order in IA. 42 of 1997 were placed. In spite of the same, Rent Controller thought to have the order in IA. 19 of 1997 set aside on condition. Against the order of the Rent Controller dated 16.10.1998, Landlord filed an appeal in R.C.A. 8 of 1998, challenging the legality of the order of Rent Controller. Appellate Authority found that the action of tenants in further prosecuting I.A. 19 of 1997 amounts to abuse of process of court and Rent Controller also has acted wit
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
