The Rent Controller does not have the power to decide the issue of landlord and tenant as a preliminary issue in a summary proceeding.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 against the fair and decreetal order dated 15.04.2014 of the learned VII Appellate Authority, Small Causes Court, Chennai made in RCA No.27 of 2014, reversing the order dated 12.12.2013 made in M.P.No.150 of 2013 in RCOP No.2337 of 2012 on the file of XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order and decreetal order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority//VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai passed in RCA No.27 of 2014 dated 15.04.2014, reversing the order and decreetal order passed by the learned Rent Controller/XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MP No.150 of 2013 in RCOP No.2337 of 2012.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the order as per their ranks in RCOP viz., landlord and tenant.

3. RCOP No.2337 of 2012 had been filed by the landlord for fixation of fair rent as against the tenant. During the pendency of RCOP, the tenant took Page 2 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.2135 of 2014 out an application in MP No.150 of 2013 to reject the RCOP and the same was dismissed on 12.12.2013. Seemingly, aggrieved by the same, R.C.A.No.27 of 2014 was filed before the appellate authority. The appeal was allowed on 15.04.2014, rejecting the RCOP No.2337 of 2012.

4. I have heard Mr.Sandeep S.Shah, learned counsel for the landlord and Mr.K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.R.Amizhdhu, learned counsel for tenant.

5. Mr.Sandeep S.Shah, learned counsel submits as follows:-

(i) The tenant is not a person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 23(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and therefore, the appeal filed by him before the Rent Control Appellate Authority challenging the order in MP No.150 of 2013 is not maintainable.

(ii) He submits that considering the nature of the order passed by the Rent Controller, the appeal itself is not maintainable.

(iii) He would point out that the contradictions in the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority deserves to be set aside.

(iv) He would further submit that the Rent Control Appellate Authority has not given any reason in his order.

(v) He would further add that for the purpose of jural relationship of landlord and tenant, the parties necessarily will have to go to trial and the same cannot be disposed of in an interlocutory manner.

(vi) He would state that under Rule 12(2) of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, (hereinafter referred to as “ the Rules”) the manner of the disposal of the application has been set forth and this has not been seen by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.

(vii) He would further add that Ex.P.1 which had been marked in the interlocutory proceeding in MP No.150 of 2013 is not in dispute.

(viii) He would also add that the extent of property under Tenancy covered by the Act alone is disputed and this cannot be interpreted in an interlocutory stage.

(ix) Finally, he would state that an Order under Section 23 of the Act means an “ order” affecting the rights and liabilities of a party and does not speak about “ any order” under the Act.

6. Torpedoing this argument Mr.K.G.Raghhavan, learned Senior Counsel submits as follows:-

(i) That the Rent Controller failed to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him.

(ii) The Rent Controller is empowered to decide his jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and by virtue of his order dated 12.12.2013, the said issue had not been decided.

(iii) He would argue that it is inherent in every Rent Controller to decide his jurisdiction and it doe