Madras High Court granted an application seeking early disposal of rent control eviction proceedings. The Court directed the lower court to conclude the case on merits within six months due to prolonged adjournments.
Direction to dispose of R.C.O.P.No.63 of 2016 on merits within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 05.03.2018
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.436 of 2018
G.R.Sankarlal ... Revision Petitioner / Petitioner / Landlord
vs.
S.Kamaraj ... Respondent / Respondent / Tenant
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned I Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town to dispose of the case in R.C.O.P.No.63 of 2016 within a stipulated time frame.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Surendran
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned I Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town, to dispose of the case in R.C.O.P.No.63 of 2016, within a stipulated time as may be fixed by this Court.
2.1. According to the petitioner, the suit mentioned property belongs to him and R.C.O.P.No.52 of 2012 was filed against the respondent for eviction under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) & 14 (i)(b) of the Rent Control Act. The said R.C.O.P., was dismissed on 28.02.2013, against which, R.C.A.No.20 of 2013 was filed. According to the petitioner, though R.C.O.P. was dismissed, there is a specific finding with regard to his ownership and against the same, the respondent/tenant has not filed any appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner/landlord, pending R.C.A., proceedings, has filed I.A.No.122 of 2013 under Section 11(4) of the Rent Control Act, claiming arrears of rent for the period from 01.10.2009 to 31.05.2013, which was allowed and the respondent/tenant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.48,400/-. Challenging the said I.A., the respondent/tenant has filed C.R.P.(MD)No.468 of 2014 and the same was allowed on 17.03.2014, however, the petitioner herein/landlord https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was permitted to withdraw the deposited sum of Rs.48,400/-. In the mean time, R.C.A.No.20 of 2013 was dismissed and challenging the same, C.R.P.(MD)No.2414 of 2014 was filed and the same was also
2
dismissed on 05.05.2017.
2.2. Now, the grievance of the petitioner/landlord is that the respondent/tenant, right from 01.06.2013, instead of paying the rent, is depositing the same in one of his own Bank Account and that too, without any permission, whatsoever. In view of the same, the petitioner/landlord has filed the present R.C.O.P.No.63 of 2016, seeking eviction, on the ground of wilful default right from 01.06.2013 onwards. In the meanwhile, I.A.No.116 of 2016 was filed and the same is being adjourned, right from 23.08.2016. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in view of the pendency of I.A.No.116 of 2016, the main R.C.O.P., itself is being adjourned and hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the Court below for early disposal of the R.C.O.P., proceedings.
Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS-I)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
The I Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town.
GK
TE/KKR/SAR-1 : 23/03/2018 : 2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.436 of 2018 05.03.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court must dispose of the revision proceedings concerning eviction within a stipulated time.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
G.R.Sankarlal
S.Kamaraj
J. Nisha Banu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
