Dismissed

Praesh K.Mehta v. G.Azariah

Madras HC21 Feb 2018CRP/671/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed three civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 challenging orders refusing to decide the territorial jurisdiction of the Rent Control Authority prior to trial. The Court held that the matter would be decided at the time of pronouncing the final orders.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 were dismissed with an observation that the question of territorial jurisdiction would be decided at the time of pronouncement of the final orders.

Praesh K.Mehta Vs G.Azariah — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) Nos. 671 to 673 of 2018
and
C.M.P Nos. 3451 to 3453 of 2018
1. Paresh K. Mehta
2. Ajay K. Mehta
3. Geetha P. Mehta
4. Sonal A. Mehta .. Petitioners
in all CRPs
Vs
G. Azariah .. Respondent
in all CRPs

¶7

PRAYER in CRP (PD) No. 671 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order dated 21.11.2017 passed in M.P. No. 552 of 2017 in RCOP No. 1439 of 2012 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai and allow the revision petition.

¶8

PRAYER in CRP (PD) No. 672 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

decreetal order dated 21.11.2017 passed in M.P. No. 553 of 2017 in RCOP No. 800 of 2013 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai and allow the revision petition.

¶12

PRAYER in CRP (PD) No. 673 of 2018: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair order and decreetal order dated 21.11.2017 passed in M.P. No. 554 of 2017 in RCOP No. 1280 of 2012 on the file of the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai and allow the revision petition.

¶13

For Petitioners : Dr.A. Thiagarajan, Sr. Counsel for M/s. M. Nallathambi For Respondent : Mr. N. Nagu Sah

¶14

The respondent landlord filed the RCOP No. 1439 of 2012 for eviction on the ground of wilful default, against the petitioners. The respondent also initiated rent control proceedings in R.C.O.P No.1280 of 2012 for fixation of fair rent, against the petitioners. At the time of filing counter in R.C.O.P No.1439 of 2012, the petitioners filed M.P. No. 552 of 2017, raising preliminary issue to decide the territorial jurisdiction of the Rent Control Authority. The court below has dismissed the application stating that the same can be decided at the time of

¶15

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶16

¶17

pronouncement of the orders. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶18

Counter statement has been filed by the respondent in

¶19

the aforesaid application. After considering the submissions made by

¶20

both the parties, the court below dismissed the application observing

¶21

that both sides witnesses have been examined and that the trial has

¶22

almost come to an end. Since the application has been filed at that stage, the court below dismissed the application. It has been further

¶23

observed that the question of territorial jurisdiction can be decided at the time of pronouncement of the orders, after analysing the entire

¶24

facts. In view of the above observations made by the court below, this Court is not inclined to entertain this Civil revision petition. However, at

¶25

the time of pronouncement of the orders, if the court comes to a conclusion that there is no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the RCOP,

¶26

then appropriate order may be passed to approach before the appropriate Court, without going into the other issues in the aforesaid RCOP proceedings.

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

¶29

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶30

avr

¶31

Therefore, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed,
with the above observation. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. No order as to costs.
21.02.2018
Index : Yes/ No
Speaking order/ Non speaking order
[Issue order copy on or before 25.04.2018]
avr
To
The Rent Control Appellate Authority/
XV Small Causes Court,
Chennai.

¶32

CRP (PD) Nos. 671 to 673 of 2018 and C.M.P Nos. 3451 to 3453 of 2018

¶33

http://www.judis.nic.in

Praesh K.Mehta v. G.Azariah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praesh K.Mehta v. G.Azariah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Thiyagu, S/O.M.Samikannu, Vs Ms.Chinnaiah

C.Manoharan Vs R.Nagarajan

Gnanalochani Vs J.Yoganandan

R. Anandan Vs M. Chandran

The Executive Engineer Vs Kamalam(Died)

Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. Vs M/S.Janani Minerals (P) Ltd.