1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:28.04.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI C.R.P(NPD)(MD)Nos.909 and 910 of 2011 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 1 of 2011 G.Gurusamy ... Petitioner in both C.R.Ps Vs. M.Vinayagam ... Respondent in both C.R.Ps. PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the R.C.A.Nos.72 and 71 of 2010 respectively from the file of Principal Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai and to reject the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Jeyapalam COMMON ORDER The landlord is the petitioner herein. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the order passed in I.A.Nos.161 and 160 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.217 of 2004 filed by the tenant. The applications are filed by the tenant for certain reliefs during the pendency of R.C.O.P and the same are after due contest dismissed by the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, the tenant has preferred R.C.A.Nos.71 and 72 of 2010 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Pending appeals above referred to, the Rent Controller in compliance with the direction issued by this Court in C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1331 of 2010 disposed of the main R.C.O.P on 16.11.2010 against the tenant. The tenant has again preferred R.C.A.No.8 of 2011 against the order of eviction passed against him. The landlord has come forward with these two revision petitions to strike off R.C.A.Nos.71 and 72 of 2010 mainly on the ground of maintainability and by contending that the same are filed by the tenant only to drag on the proceedings. 2. In my considered view, the appeals having been entertained and the landlord having duly entered appearance, the legal objection regarding the maintainability and other objections on merits if any can be decided in the appeals and the question of independently going into the maintainability of R.C.As in these revision petitions does not at all arise and the remedy available to the petitioner is to raise and agitate the legal as well as factual objections before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would in the course of his argument appeal to this court to issue direction to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 lower appellate Court to jointly dispose of the appeals arising out of interlocutory orders and against the eviction order in R.C.O.P. This Court has no hesitation to accept the same as it is but appropriate course to be adopted by the lower appellate Court. 4. In the result, the Principal Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai is directed to dispose of R.C.A.Nos.71 and 72 of 2010 and 8 of 2011 together by not later than the end of this year. With the above direction, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Deputy Registrar /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To The Principal Subordinate Judge cum Rent Control Appellate Authority, Madurai CRP(MD).Nos.909 and 910 of 2011 28.04.2011 pm SMA/22.6.2011/2C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/