1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:23.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN CRP(PD)(MD)No.591 of 2011 and MP(MD)NO.1 of 2011 A.Dakshinamoorthy :Petitioner -Vs- S.Nijam Khan :Respondent PRAYER:Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 31.01.2011, made in I.A.No.14 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif cum Rent Controller Court, Ramanathapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresanm, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.R.Laxman For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Jayapalam ORDER This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the dismissal of the petition taken out by the petitioner for joint trial. 2.The case of the petitioner is that he is a tenant under the respondent. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2007 for evicting the petitioner herein on the ground of willful default and owner's occupation When the R.C.O.P. was pending, the petitioner herein filed R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2009 before the same Court under Section 7(2)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, for refund of Rs.4,46,000/-, out of the total advance of Rs.4,50,000/-. To try those two proceedings by way of joint trial, the petitioner took out an application in I.A.No.14 of 2011, which was dismissed by the trial Court. The said dismissal order is challenged before this Court. 3.Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that "1. Both the proceedings are pending before the same Court. 2. The issues involved in the two petitions are inter linked and similar in nature. 3. The parties are also the same, except a few more respondents in R.C.O.P.NO.2 of 2009. 4. If both the petitions are allowed to be decided separately, there will be conflicting and overlapping orders passed by the Rent Controller." He relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. T.V.s.Motor Co.Ltd., reported in 2010(3) T.N.C.J.822(Mad). 4.Heard the parties and perused the records. 5.It is seen that R.C.O.P.NO.3 of 2007 has been filed by the respondent on the ground of willful default as well as owner's occupation. In the said R.C.O.P. counter was filed by the petitioner/respondent therein and the petitioner's evidence was already over. The said matter is only posted for evidence of the respondent. Whereas R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner herein for refund of the excess advance amount paid by him to the previous owners of the petitioner's premises. In the said R.C.O.P., the respondent herein only filed counter statement and other respondents therein so far have not filed their counter statement. Their counter https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 statement is evident that the stage of both the said proceedings are different. One is in part-heard stage and in the other proceedings, the counter statements are yet to be filed. 6.The issue involved in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2007 is whether the petitioner herein committed willful default in the payment of rent and the other issue is the bonafide requirement of the premises for owner's occupation. Though it may appear that the willful default is a common question, it could be decided together. However the case which is being projected by the petitioner herein in R.C.O.P.NO.2 of 2009 was already made as defence in R.C.O.P.NO.3 of 2007, wherein the petitioner is at liberty to adduce evidence inconsonance with the counter statement filed by him. Secondly the parties are different in both the proceedings. In R.C.O.P.NO.3 of 2007, the issues are whether there is willful default committed by the petitioner/tenant and whether requirement of petitioner's premises by the respondent/landlord is bonafide. In R.C.O.P.NO.2 of 2009, the question is whether the petitioner herein paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) towards the advance amount to the previous landlord and whether the said amount was later paid to the landlord i.e. the respondent herein (subsequent purchaser). So totally different issues are involved and different parties are arrayed as respondents. Considering those aspects only, the trial Court rightly decided that joint trial would really create confusion and it would only delay the disposal of the proceedings The said reasonings cannot be interfered with. 7.In the judgment in Bajaj Auto Limited Vs. T.V.s.Motor Co.Ltd., reported in 2010(3) T.N.C.J.822(Mad) relied upon by the petitioner, wherein it has been decided that when there are two suits and the claims in both suits are inextricably interlinked, the trial Court would be justified in ordering a joint trial. However, in this case, totally different parties are involved and different questions namely the willful default, the bonafide requirement of the premises for owner's occupation and refund of excess advance amount are also involved and the stages of the proceedings are different. In view of the above position, the said judgment is not useful to the petitioner. In view of that, this revision petition fails and stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) / TRUE COPY / Sub Assistant Registrar To: The District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Ramanathapuram. +1CC to Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate. SR.No.7918. Ssl RP/31.03.2011/2P/3C. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.591 of 2011 and M.P(MD)NO.1 of 2011 23.03.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/