1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.232 and 233 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 O.M.H.Fazdul Hameed through his power of attorney H.Muthu Mohamed. .. Petitioner/Appellant/Rspondent in both C.R.Ps. Vs. L.T.Sundararajan .. Respondent/Respondent/Petitioner in CRP.No.232/2011 LT.Ramachandran, .. Respondent/in CRP.No.233/2011 Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the fair and decretal orders dated 06.10.2010 passed in Rent Control Appeal Nos.63 and 64 of 2009 by the Principal Sub Court, Madurai confirming the fair and decretal orders dated 10.01.2007 passed in R.C.O.P.Nos.21 and 23 of 2005 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mohd.Ajeesdheen in both C.R.Ps. For Respondent : Mr.M.Rajaraman in both C.R.Ps. COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the concurrent orders passed in R.C.O.P.No.21 of 2005 and in Rent Control Appeal No.63 of 2009 and in R.C.O.P.No.23 of 2005 and in Rent Control Appeal No.64 of 2009 by the Rent Controller/Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town and by the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Madurai respectively. 2. The respondent in both the Civil Revision Petitions has separately filed R.C.O.P.Nos.21 and 23 of 2005 praying to pass an order of eviction with regard to demised buildings mentioned therein, wherein the present revision petitioner has been shown as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 sole respondent. During pendency of the same, the petitioner in R.C.O.P.Nos.21 and 23 of 2005 has filed Interlocutory Application Nos.162 and 163 of 2006 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, wherein a conditional order has been passed. Since the conditional order has not been complied with, the main petitions filed in R.C.O.P.Nos.21 and 23 of 2005 have been allowed and thereby passed orders of eviction. Against the eviction orders passed in R.C.O.P.Nos.21 and 23 of 2005, Rent Control Appeal Nos.63 and 64 of 2009 have been filed on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Madurai. 3. The Rent Control Appellate Authority/ Principal Sub Court, Madurai after hearing both sides and upon perusing the relevant materials, has dismissed Rent Control Appeal Nos.63 and 64 of 2009. Against the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred at the instance of the respondent/tenant as revision petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has attacked the concurrent orders passed by the Court below on the following grounds: (a) The Rent Control Appellate Authority/Principal Sub Court, Madurai has passed a specific order to try the present Rent Control Original Petitions along with R.C.O.P.No.136 of 2005 by the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town. But the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority has not been complied with and therefore the present concurrent orders are liable to be set aside. (b) During the period of alleged default mentioned in the petitions, the present revision petitioner has not attained majority and therefore he is not bound to pay monthly rent. Under the said circumstances, it cannot be said that he committed wilful default in paying monthly rent. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent in both the Civil Revision Petitions has contended that in Transfer Original Petition No.1 of 2006, it has been specifically directed to transfer the present R.C.O.P.Nos.21 and 23 of 2005 from the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town to the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town and accordingly both the petitions have been transferred and since Interlocutory Application Nos.162 and 163 of 2006 have been filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and since the revision petitioner has failed to comply with the conditional orders passed therein, R.C.O.P.Nos.21 and 23 of 2005 have been allowed and therefore all the petitions cannot be tried together and under the said circumstances the first point raised on the side of the revision petitioner is of no use and further at the time of filing the present petitions, the revision petitioner has been running business in the demised buildings and therefore he committed wilful default in paying monthly rent and altogether these Civil Revision Petition deserve to be dismissed. 6. As explicated earlier, R.C.O.P.Nos.21 and 23 of 2005 have been filed by the respondent in each Civil Revision Petition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 as petitioner respectively. In both the petitions, it has been clearly stated that the respondent/tenant has committed wilful default in paying monthly rent from January, 2003. In Transfer Original Petition No.1 of 2006, a specific order has been passed to the effect that these petitions should be transferred to the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town from the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai Town and accordingly both the petitions have been transferred. During pendency of the same, the petitions in Interlocutory Application Nos.162 and 163 of 2006 have been filed under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and the Rent Controller/ Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town has allowed both the petitions, wherein conditional orders have been passed. Since conditional orders have not been complied with, the petitions filed in R.C.O.P.Nos.21 and 23 of 2005 have been allowed. 7. During pendency of R.C.O.P.Nos.21 and 23 of 2005, the petitions in Interlocutory Application Nos.162 and 163 of 2006 have been filed under Section 11(4) of the said Act, all the petitions mentioned in Transfer Original Petition No.1 of 2006 cannot be tried together and therefore the first and foremost attack made on the side of the revision petitioner is sans merit. 8. The second attack made on the side of the revision petitioner is that during the relevant period, the revision petitioner has not attained majority and therefore he cannot be mulcted with liability that he committed default in paying monthly rent. It is seen from the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below to the effect that only the petitioner has been running his business in the demised buildings. Since the petitioner has been running his business in the demised buildings, he is bound to give monthly rent and further in the petitions filed in Interlocutory Application Nos.162 and 163 of 2006, the liability of the revision petitions has already been decided and against the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.162 and 163 of 2006, no Rent Control Appeal nor Civil Revision Petition has been filed and therefore the orders passed therein have become final. Under the said circumstances the second ground urged on the side of the revision petitioner is not legally and factually maintainable. 9. The Courts below after considering the orders passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.162 and 163 of 2006 have rightly passed the concurrent orders. In view of the foregoing narration of factual aspects, this Court has not found any error in the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below and altogether these Civil Revision Petition deserve to be dismissed. 10. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs and the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below are confirmed. However the revision petitioner is given four months time to vacate the demised buildings. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AS) /True Copy/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority/ Principal Subordinate Judge,, Madurai. 2.The Rent Controller/ Principal District Munsif , Madurai Town. +2cc to M/s.M.Rajaraman, Advocate SR.No.36138, 36189 +2cc to M/s.T.Lajapathi Roy, Advocate Sr.Nos.36059, 36055 smn ssk/21.10.2011 /7c-4p/- COMMON ORDER MADE IN C.R.P(NPD)(MD)Nos.232 and 233 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 18.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/