SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Girdharilal Chandak and Ors. —Petitioners
versus
S. Mehdi Ispahani and Anr. —Respondents
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2909 of 2010 and M.P. No. 1 of 2010
Decided on 2.8.2011

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:AR.L. Sundaresan, Senior Counsel AL. Gandhimathi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:R. Balachander, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Mere pendency of Revision Petition could not mean that orders of Courts below are inexecutable.

Headnote:(i) Tenancy—Eviction—Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960—Section 10(2)(i) read with Rule 12 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974—Willful default in payment of difference between fair rent fixed by Court and contractual rent—Respondents are now in possession of property which formed subject matter of eviction proceedings, for past more than 4 years and now, superstructure has been brought down—Petitioner himself did not seek a stay of orders passed by Rent Controller and Appellate Authority, while challenging the same by way of revision—Mere pendency of Revision Petition could not mean that orders of Courts below are inexecutable—If a person who seeks order of stay and suffers refusal, is himself obliged to pay fair rent, Petitioner who did not even seek a stay of orders of both Courts below, cannot be placed better of—Civil Revision Petition dismissed. (Paras 14, 15 , 20 to 23)

       (ii) Civil Procedure Code , 1908—Order 41 Rule 5—Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960—Section 23—Stay on order of court—So long as there is no stay of order fixing fair rent and so long as Petitioner did not want or did not seek a stay of order fixing fair rent, it is not open to him to contend that proceedings had not attained finality and that therefore, he was not obliged to pay fair rent fixed—Construction that admission Revision, without any order of stay, would automatically take away finality conferred under Section 23(4) to an order of appellate authority, would do violence to Act and Rules—In absence of a stay, by High Court in Revision, order of Appellate Authority becomes final until it is modified or set aside by High Court. (Paras 20 to 23)

       Result: Civil Revision petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

V. Ramasubramanian, J. — This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and confirmed by the Appellate Authority .

2. Heard Mr. ARL. Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. R. Balachander, learned Counsel for the Respondents.

3. The Respondents filed R.C.O.P. No.311 of 2006 on the file of the XI Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Controller) against the First Petitioner herein under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, contending that the Petitioner was guilty of willful default in payment of the difference between the fair rent fixed by the Court and the contractual rent. The defence taken by the First Petitioner was that the fixation of fair rent by two Courts had not attained finality, in view of the pendency of a Revision Petition.

4. After considering all the contentions raised on both sides, the Rent Controller passed an order on 26.2.2007, directing eviction. The appeal filed by the First Petitioner in RCA No.267 of 2007 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 24.4.2009. It is against these concurrent orders that the First Petitioner filed the above Revision. During the pendency of the Revision, the First Petitioner died and hence, the Second Petitioner is brought on record.

5. Though the facts narrated above would have been sufficient in any other case to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition, the case on hand would not fall under the category of a normal variety. Therefore, a few more facts which may date back to antiquity and a few facts which have happened after the institution of the Eviction proceedings may have to be taken note of and hence the list of events which have happened in the past about 23 years is narrated hereunder:

(i) The Respondents filed a Petition for fixation of fair rent R.C.O.P. No.2480 of 1988. The contractual right of rent was Rs,1,000/- per month. The tenanted premises was land and building at new Door No.35, Anna Salai, Chennai-2, located in a land of an extent of about 2 grounds and 98 sq. ft. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Rent Controller fixed the fair rent for the premises at Rs. 31 ,591/- per month.

(ii) The First Petitioner as well as the Respondents filed Appeals as against the order of the Rent Controller, in R.C.A. Nos. 627 & 716 of 2004 respectively. The Appellate Authority, by an order dated 26.4.2005, enhanced the fair rent to Rs. 43,084/- payable as per the provisions of the Act, with effect from the date of the Petition for fixation of fair rent viz., 1.9.1988.

(iii) Aggrieved by the fair rent so fixed by the Appellate Authority , the First Petitioner/tenant filed two Revision Petitions in C.R.P. NPD Nos.1657 & 1658 of 2005. These Revision Petitions were not accompanied by Stay Petitions. On 28.10.2005, while admitting the Revision Petitions, this Court passed the following order:

“The Revisions are admitted. The tenant/Revision Petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- (Rupees eighty five lakhs) as fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority at the rate of Rs. 43,084 per month, to the credit of R.C.O.P. No.2480 of 1988 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, on or before 31.1.2006. On such deposit being made, the amount shall be invested in Indian Bank, Esplanade Branch, High Court Extension counter, Chennai-600 104, initially for a period of 3 years and shall be renewed periodically, till the disposal of the Revisions.”

(iv) As against that portion of the order which directed the Petitioner to make a deposit of Rs. 85 lakhs and which also directed the Petitioner to deposit the fair rent fixed by the Court below, the Petitioner filed the Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos. 25728 & 25729 of 2005 on the file of the Supreme Court. I must take it that the Special Leave Petitions were not against the order admitting the Revision Petitio

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top