Simply because alternative remedy of appeal available, High Court not precluded from exercising power under Article 227 of Constitution.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.12.2006 in I.A.No.192 of 2006 in R.C.O.P. No.120 of 2004 passed by the Principal Rent Controller, (Principal District Munsif Court), Madurai Town.

2. The petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are landlords. Originally one Mr.S.R.Sutharsan, who is the husband of the first respondent and father of the respondents 2 to 4 filed R.C.O.P.No.120 of 2004 before the Principal Rent Controller, (Principal District Munsif, Madurai Town. The petitioner remained exparte in the R.C.O.P., which resulted in exparte order passed on 12.04.2006. Thereafter, he filed an interlocutory application before the Rent Controller seeking to set aside the exparte order. Further in filing the said interlocutory application there was delay of 73 days. In order to have the delay condoned, he has filed I.A.No.192 of 2006 before the Rent Controller. In the meantime, the original landlord Mr.S.R.Sutharsan died and in his place respondents 1 to 4 were impleaded as the petitioners 2 to 5 in the R.C.O.P. In I.A.No.192 of 2006, the respondents have filed a detailed counter. The learned Rent Controller after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the said interlocutory application, thereby refusing to condone the delay by order dated 15.12.2006. The said order is under challenge in this revision before this Court.

3. Heard Mr.R.Vijayakumar, counsel for the petitioner and the Senior Counsel Mrs.Hema Sampath, for the respondents.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has raised an objection that this revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is not at all maintainable. Facing the said question of maintainability under Section 115 of C.P.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner would concede that this revision under section 115 C.P.C. is maintainable, however, relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 2006(2) L.W. 476 (Annasami Naidu v. Karunakaran) made a prayer to convert the present revision as the one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the said judgment, this Court has taken the view that such conversion can be made by this Court. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents conceded that the present Civil Revision Petition can be converted into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the said position, this C.R.P. is converted as the one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The principal contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondents is that the order under challenge is an appealable order, falling within the ambit of Section 23 of the Tamil Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act and therefore when there is an effective and alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, this revision is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would counter the said stand, contending that the order under challenge is not the one passed under any one of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, so as to fall within the ambit of Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and so the revision is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as there is no alternative remedy available.

7. Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is as follows:

Section 23(1)(a): The Government may, by general or special order notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, confer on such officers and authorities as they think fit, the powers of Appellate Authorities for the purpose of this Act, in such areas and in such classes of cases as may be specified in the order.

Section 23(1)(b): Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller may, within fifteen days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the Appellate Authority having jurisdiction.

The learned counsel Mr.R.Vijayakumar wo