1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 02.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.185 and 186 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.1 of 2011 Ahmad @ Abu Bucker .. Petitioner in both C.R.Ps. Vs. M.Haji Mohammed .. Respondent in both C.R.Ps. Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal orders dated 24.01.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.5 and 6 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999 by the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Pudukottai. For Petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan in both C.R.Ps. COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.5 and 6 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999 by the Rent Controller/ District Munsif Court, Pudukottai. 2. The respondent herein as petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999 on the file of the Court below praying to pass an order of eviction, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole respondent. In R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999, both parties have adduced evidence and the same stands for hearing arguments. Under the said circumstances, the revision petitioner herein as petitioner has filed Interlocutory Application Nos.5 and 6 of 2011 so as to reopen R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999 on the side of the revision petitioner/respondent for the purpose of recalling P.W.1 so as to make cross-examination. The Court below has dismissed both the petitions. Against the dismissal orders passed by the Court below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/ respondent/tenant as revision petitioner. 3. Considering the nature of the orders passed by the Court below and also considering the stage of R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999, this Court is of the view that notice need not be sent to the respondent/petitioner/landlord and these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of on merits at the stage of admission. 4. It is an admitted fact that the respondent/landlord as petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999 on the file of the Court below praying to pass an order of eviction, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as sole respondent/tenant. In R.C.O.P.No.39 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 1999, both parties have adduced evidence and the matter stands for hearing arguments. At that stage, these petitions have been field so as to reopen R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999 on the side of the revision petitioner/ respondent/tenant and also to recall P.W.1. 5. On the side of the respondent/ petitioner/landlord a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been clearly stated that the respondent/petitioner/landlord has been examined on 05.09.2010 and subsequently for the purpose of making cross-examination, R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999 has been adjourned to various dates. Therefore it seems that the Court below has given sufficient opportunities so as to cross-examine P.W.1. 6. The present petitions have been filed stating that the revision petitioner/petitioner/ respondent/tenant has no connection whatsoever with the respondent/petitioner/landlord and the revision petitioner has taken possession of the demised building as a tenant only from the brother of the respondent/petitioner/landlord and with regard to that aspect P.W.1 has to be cross-examined. In fact, this Court has perused the entire averments made in the petitions. Nowhere it has been stated that a written agreement has come into existence in between the revision petitioner and the alleged brother of the respondent. Therefore it seems that the main motto of the revision petitioner is to drag on the proceedings of R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999. 7. Considering the fact that already sufficient opportunities have been given to the revision petitioner so as to make cross- examination to P.W.1 and also considering the fact that without any document so as to buttress the contention urged in the petitions, these petitions have been filed, it is needless to say that the orders passed by the Court below are perfectly correct and the same do not warrant interference and altogether these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to the dismissed. 8. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs at the stage of admission and the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.5 and 6 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1999 by the Rent Controller/District Munsif Court, Pudukottai are confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. SD DEPUTY REGISTRAR ( WRITS ) /TRUE COPY/ ASST REGISTRAR smn To The Rent Controller, District Munsif, Pudukottai. 1CC TO MR. G.R. SWAMINATHAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 4255: DM:2011:FEB:25: COMMON ORDER PASSED IN C.R.P(PD)(MD)Nos.185 and 186 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 2P>3C:; 02.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/