Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3304
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
Anwar Sheriff – Petitioner
Vs
S.E. Mohammed Rizwanullah – Respondent
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.1827 of 2016 and 2302 of 2016 and CMP Nos.9597 and 11902 of 2016
Decided on : 21-10-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr.Sirajudeen, Senior Counsel for Mr.R. Rajamani
For the Respondent: Mr.L. Dhamodaran,
Timely disposal of appeals and applications, ensuring both sides are heard before making a decision.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Civil Revision Petition - Sec.47 of the Civil Procedure Code - E.P.No.168 of 2016, R.C.A.No.483 of 2015 - The court directed the Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within three months and granted an order of Interim Stay till the disposal of the appeal in R.C.A.No.483 of 2015.
Fact of the Case:
The alleged tenants filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the delay in disposing of the Stay Petition and the order of eviction. The Executing Court dismissed the application without hearing the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within three months and granted an order of Interim Stay till the disposal of the appeal in R.C.A.No.483 of 2015. The petitioners were given liberty to file a Review Application before the Executing Court.
Issues: Delay in disposing of the Stay Petition, dismissal of the application without hearing the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely disposal of appeals and applications, ensuring that both sides are heard before making a decision.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petitions were disposed of, directing the Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within three months and granting an order of Interim Stay till the disposal of the appeal in R.C.A.No.483 of 2015. The petitioners were given liberty to file a Review Application before the Executing Court.
Heard Both sides.
2. The respondents in R.C.O.P.No.1856 of 2013, on the file of X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, have filed the Civil Revision Petition in CRP (NPD) No.1827 of 2016 to direct the Rent Control Appellate Authority, VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai to dispose of the Stay Petition in M.P.No.307 of 2015 in R.C.A No.483 of 2015 within a time frame.
3. Pursuant to the order of eviction, passed in RCOP No.1856 of 2013, the alleged tenants filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.483 of 2015 on the file of VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. In the said appeal, the alleged tenants have also filed a Stay Petition in M.P.No.307 of 2015.
4. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the stay petition, filed before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, has not been disposed of by the appellate authority, inspite of repeated adjournments given by the Court. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petition has been adjourned for clarification on several dates when no clarification was required in the matter. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that pursuant to the order of eviction, granted by the Rent Controller, the respondents/landlords also filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.168 of 2016 on the file of X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
5. This Court, while ordering Notice of Motion on 21.06.2016, granted an order of Interim Stay on condition that the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit of RCOP No.1856 of 2013.
6. Now, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have complied with the conditional order dated 21.06.2016.
7. The Rent Control Appeal in RCA No.483 of 2015 is also pending for a long time. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the appellate authority can be directed to dispose of the appeal within a stipulated time and till such time, the order of interim stay can be granted. Accordingly, I direct the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai to dispose of the appeal in RCA No.483 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and there shall be an order of Interim Stay till the disposal of the appeal in R.C.A.No.483 of 2015.
8. Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.2302 of 2016 has been filed by the alleged tenants, challenging the order passed in the application in E.A.No.34 of 2016 in E.P.No.168 of 2016 on the file of X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
9. Pursuant to the order of eviction, passed in RCOP No.1856 of 2013, the respondents/landlords filed an Execution Petition in E.P No.168 of 2016. In the said Execution Petition, the revision petitioners filed an application in E.A No.34 of 2016 under Sec.47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The respondents/landlords filed their counter and contested the application. The Executing court, by Order dated 21.06.2016, dismissed the application, against which, the alleged tenants have filed the Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.2302 of 2016 .
10. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Executing Court, had dismissed the application, even without hearing the submissions, made by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the matter was adjourned to 16.06.2016 and 21.06.2016 and on the same date, i.e., 21.06.2016, the application was dismissed by the Executing Court. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that since the application was dismissed without hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, it is against the principles of natural justice. However, the Executing Court had recorded that the application was dismissed only after hearing both sides.
11. The petitioners also filed an affidavit of the counsel, who appeared before the Executing Court in E.A.No.34 of 2016 in E.P No.168 of 2016 stating that he has not made any submission in the applicat
