IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS PRESENT DATED: 15.07.2008 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Civil Revision Petition Nos.4 and 266 of 2006 C.R.P.No. 4 of 2006 A.Anbumani ....revision petitioner/appellant/ petitioner/land lord Vs. Kanthammal ...respondent/respondent/ respondent/tenant C.R.P.No. 266 of 2006 Kanthammal ...revision petitioner / respondent/respondent/ tenant Vs. A.Anbumani ....respondent/appellant/ petitioner/land lord Civil Revision Petition No. 4 of 2006 is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, praying to set aside the order dated 28.07.2005 made in R.C.A.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge) at Chengalpattu and allow the original petition in R.C.O.P.No. 6 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) at Chengalpattu. Civil Revision Petition No.266 of 2006 is filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, praying to set aside the order dated 28.07.2005 made in R.C.A.No.1 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge) at Chengalpattu and confirm the order made in R.C.O.P.No. 6 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif) at Chengalpattu. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For revision petitioner : Ms.G.Sumitra in C.R.P.No. 4 of 2006 and respondent in in C.R.P.No. 226 of 2006 For respondent in : Ms.G.Nalini C.R.P.No.4 of 2006 and revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.266 of 2006 COMMON ORDER Both the revisions are arising from the order of remand passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Chengalpattu. The revision petitioner in C.R.P.No. 4 of 2006 by name Anbumani is the land lord of the premises in question and the respondent therein is the tenant. The tenant preferred the other revision in C.R.P.No.226 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties in these revisions will be referred to according to their jural relationship. 2. The land lord filed the original petition in R.C.O.P.No.6 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller, Chengalpattu for eviction. The learned Rent Controller, Chengalpattu on 20.10.2000 dismissed the petition without cost. Subsequently, he preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No. 1 of 2001 along with application in I.A.No.905 of 2002 for reception of additional documentary evidence before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authroity, Chengalpattu. The learned Appellate Judge allowed the appeal setting aside the order of dismissal dated 20.10.2000 made in R.C.O.P.No. 6 of 1992 by the learned Rent Controller, Chengalpattu but, however, remitted the matter back to the Rent Controller, Chengalpattu for fresh disposal with a direction to permit both the landlord and the tenant to adduce additional evidence. He also allowed the application in I.A.No.905 of 2002, received the documents and directed the learned Rent Controller to mark those additional documents during the course of fresh enquiry. Aggrieved by the above order of remand, both the landlord and the tenant preferred these revisions respectively. 3. This Court heard both Ms.G.Sumithra learned cousnel appearing for the land lord and Ms.G.Nalini, learned cousnel appearing for the tenant. 4. It is well settled position and consistent judicial opinion of this Court that when ever the matter is pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, he has to decide the matter with the available matrials before him and he shall not remit the matter back to the Rent Controlller for disposal afresh. The view has been taken in more than one occasion by this court. For instance, the decisions reported in N.Bacheral Vs. S.Subhash Chandra Bose 2002 (3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M.L.J. 500 and S.Parameshwaran Pillai Vs. The Deputy General Manager, Tele Communication, Trichy and others 2003 (3) M.L.J. 445. In fact, the former decision has also been referred to by this court in the latter decision, where the order of appellate authority remitting the matter back, was set aside and the appellate authority was directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. 5. Having regard to the well settled proposition, the impugned order of remand suffers from illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are allowed setting aside the order of remand dated 28.07.2005 made in R.C.A.No.1 of 2001 and also the order in I.A.905 of 2002 and the learned Appellate Rent Control Authority is directed to dispose of the R.C.A.No. 1 of 2001 as well as application in I.A. 905 of 2002 filed praying to receive additional documentary evidence, on merits within three months from the date of receipt of records from the Registry. With these observations, the civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. Kmk To 1. The Rent Control Appellate Authority/ Principal Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu. 2. The Rent Controller/District Munsif, Chengalpattu 3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras-104. + 1 CC To MS.G.Nalini, Advocate SR NO.37168 Civil Revision Petition No. 4 and 226 of 2006 SGL {CO} TP/28.8.08 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/