Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 3147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
K.Muniappan and Ors. – Petitioner
Vs.
K.T.Somasundaram and Ors. – Respondent
C.R.P.Nos.2553 & 3115 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 & 1 of 2015
Decided On : 14.10.2015
For Petitioner: Mr.I.Abrar Md Abdullah
For Respondent: Mr.K.G.Vasudevan, Mr.K.Venkatasubban for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates for R2
The court has the discretion to transfer rent control proceedings to another court without casting aspersions and can decide on issues such as the payment of advance amount at the time of final disposal of the proceedings.
Headnote:
Tenant - Rent Control Proceedings - RCOP.No.64 of 2008, RCOP.No.166 of 2007 - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - Contempt Proceedings - Fair Rent - Advance Amount - Transfer of Proceedings - [RCOP.No.64 of 2008, RCOP.No.166 of 2007, Order 18 Rule 17 CPC] - The court discussed the application of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC for reopening evidence, the failure to comply with court orders, and the transfer of rent control proceedings to another court.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant filed an application seeking refund of an excess advance amount paid to the previous owner. The landlord filed for fixation of fair rent and also applied to reopen evidence in a rent control proceeding. The tenant sought contempt proceedings against the landlord for non-compliance with court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court transferred the rent control proceedings to another court without casting any aspersions and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
Issues: Non-compliance with court orders, application of contempt proceedings, transfer of proceedings to another court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can transfer rent control proceedings to another court without casting aspersions. The issue of payment of advance amount can be decided at the time of final disposal of the rent control proceedings.
Final Decision: The rent control proceedings were transferred to the file of the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. No costs were awarded.
C.R.P.No.2553 of 2015 arises out of the order dated 24.11.2014 made in I.A.No.309 of 2014 in I.A.No.109 of 2014 in RCOP.No.64 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
2. The revision petitioner, who is the tenant, is the respondent in the aforesaid RCOP.No.64 of 2008 which was filed by the respondent in C.R.P.No.2553 of 2015 for fixation of fair rent. The respondent in C.R.P.No.2553 of 2015 has purchased the property from one Vijayakumar, under whom the the revision petitioner was originally the tenant.
3. The respondent in C.R.P.No.2553 of 2015 who purchased the property as stated above had also filed another rent control proceedings in RCOP.No.166 of 2007 for eviction. In the said RCOP, the erstwhile owner, Thiru.Vijayakumar was impleaded as second respondent at the instance of the revision petitioner.
4. It is the case of the revision petitioner that he had paid an advance amount of Rs.6,25,000/-to the erstwhile owner Thiru.Vijayakumar, who was impleaded as second respondent in RCOP.No.166 of 2007. Hence, the revision petitioner had filed an application in I.A.No.214 of 2015 in RCOP.No.166 of 2007 seeking for a direction to the erstwhile owner as well as the later purchaser viz., the respondents 1 and 2 to refund the excess advance amount of Rs.6,25,000/-to the petitioner. In the said application, the erstwhile owner took the stand that he never received any advance as contended by the revision petitioner/tenant.
5. After considering the submissions made by both sides, the learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, dismissed the said application by an order dated 21.07.2015, against which the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.3115 of 2015 has been preferred.
6. As already stated, the landlord, who is the respondent in C.R.P.No.2553 of 2015 had filed RCOP.No.64 of 2008 for fixation of fair rent. In the said RCOP proceedings, he had also filed an application in I.A.No.109 of 2014 under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to reopen the evidence of RW1 to cross-examine the witness. That is, the revision petitioner, who was examined as RW1 was to be recalled for cross-examination.
7. The said application in I.A.No.109 of 2014 in RCOP.No.64 of 2008 filed by the landlord was allowed by the Trial Court on 01.07.2014 on payment of costs of Rs.300/-to be paid to the revision petitioner/tenant on or before 21.07.2014.
8. However, the land lord failed to pay the costs to the revision petitioner/tenant as directed by the Trial Court. The cost was tendered only on 21.08.2014 and so, the tenant refused to receive the same stating that the order of the Trial Court was not complied with.
9. Inspite of the same, the cost memo was filed by the learned counsel for the landlord, wherein there is an endorsement made by the learned counsel who represented the revision petitioner in the Trial Court that the cost was tendered only on 21.08.2014 and hence, it is refused. The said cost memo was filed in the Trial Court on 22.08.2014, even as per the docket relating to the said cost memo.
10. While so, the learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore had recorded as if the order was complied with and the memo was filed on 22.07.2014 and accepting the same, the interim application in I.A.No.109 of 2014 in RCOP.No.64 of 2008 was allowed on 22.07.2014.
11. In these circumstances, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.309 of 2014 in I.A.No.109 of 2014 in RCOP.No.64 of 2008 to initiate appropriate contempt proceedings in accordance with law against the respondent therein and all other persons concerned for having interfered with the administration of justice of the Trial Court in I.A.No.109 of 2014. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court by an order dated 24.11.2014, against which the Civil Revision Petition in CRP.No.2553 of 2015 has been preferred.
12. When the matter was listed for admission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner demonstrated that though the cost memo was filed o
