The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by landlords challenging the Sub Court's rejection of their application to amend a rent control appeal. The amendment sought to add a building to a vacant site previously ruled out by the Rent Controller.
Order dated 25.01.2011 dismissing the application to amend is confirmed; revision petition dismissed.
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.
C.R.P.(MD) No.1225 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED : 30.10.2019 ORDER PRONOUNCED : 07.11.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(MD) No.1225 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011
1.Gnanaguru
2.Venkatesh Babu
3.Pushpalatha
4.Uma Maheswari ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Appellant/ Land Lord
vs.
Murugesan ... Respondent/Respondent/Respondent/ Tenant
Prayer:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 25 of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, to set aside the order dated 25.01.2011 made in I.A.No.170 of 2008 in RCA.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Srivilliputhur.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan For Respondent : Mr.Balamohan Thambi for Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
ORDER
The landlords are the revision petitioners before this Court.
2.The above Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.170 of 2008 in RCA.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Srivilliputhur, which is a petition filed for amending the appeal grounds including the schedule of property thereunder.
3.It is necessary to briefly allude to the facts of the case for disposing of this revision petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/4
C.R.P.(MD) No.1225 of 2011
4.The landlords had filed RCOP.No.5 of 2003 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif Court) Srivilliputhur seeking to evict the tenant on the ground of wilful default, own use and occupation and non-user.
5.The tenant has filed a counter contending that he had put up the second floor by investing a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and when he had entered into the lease agreement on 01.04.1995, only the ground floor and first floor were constructed. The learned Rent Controller by his order dated 23.04.2008, was pleased to dismiss the said petition. Challenging the same, the revision petitioners/landlords had filed RCA.No.6 of 2008 of the file of the Sub Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Srivilliputhur.
6.Pending the said appeal, the landlords have come forward with the application in I.A.No.170 of 2009 to carry out certain amendments, which has been morefully described in the petition. The said application has been dismissed on 25.01.2011 by the learned Subordinate Judge (Rent Control Appellate Authority), Srivilliputhur. Challenging the same, the landlords are before this Court.
7.Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/landlords would contend that the landlords are seeking to amend the petition only to bring it in conformity with the property that is in existence on site. He would further contend that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the tenant on account of this amendment as the tenant has fully understood the case and also the demised premises.
9.Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the papers.
10.RCOP.No.5 of 2003 has been filed by the landlord, Dharmaraj, contending that the petitioner/landlord has given the petition mentioned property, which consists of a non-residential shop, on rent to the respondent/tenant under the unregistered agreement dated 01.04.1995.
The landlord would contend that he has given the property on rent only on account of his ailing health and the tenant has been in arrears of rent from 01.04.2001 and that apart, he had not been doing any business in the premises from August 2002. He would further contend that his health was improved and therefore, he
2/4
C.R.P.(MD) No.1225 of 2011
requires the said premises for his own occupation. The petition schedule property in the rent control petition has been described as follows:
jgrpy ; nrhj;J tpguk ; - 1
,uhkehjGuk; Nkw;F gjpT khtl;lk ; ,uh[ghisak; cjtpg; gjpthsh; rufk; ,uh[ghisak; fpuhkk; gioaghisak; M];gj ;jpup njU njd;fhrp Nuhl;by ; cs;s kidf;F khy;.
\ NuhLf;Fk ; thWfhYf;Fk - fpof;F rQ;r P tp kidf;Fk ; - tlf;F jq;fs ; fpiua kidf;Fk ; - Nkw;F ,e;j nrhj;Jf ;Fk ; vd; tifawhf;fSf;Fk ; nghJthd fpoNky; nghJ eilghijf;Fk; - njw;F
,jw;Fs;gl;l kid fpoNky; mb 18 njd;tly ; mb 14½ cs;s kidapy; , g;NghJ ,Uf;Fk ; jfuk; Nghl;l Nkw;Nfhg;G e Pq ;fyhf fhy;pkid khj;jpuk; jgrpy; nrhj;J tptuk; rup.
jgrpy ; nrhj;J tpguk; - 2
,uhkehjGuk; Nkw;F gjpT khtl;lk ; ,uh[ghisak; cjtpg; gjpthsh; rufk; ,uh[ghisak; fpuhkk; gioaghisak; NtLth; njUtpy; cs;s kid t Pl ;Lf ;F khy;.
nghJ eilghijf;Fk; - njw;F rpd;d khhpag;gd ; Ntld; kidf;Fk ; - Nkw;F khahd;b ehlhh; kidf;Fk ; - tlf;F nghpa khhpag;g Ntld; kidf;Fk ; - fpof;F ,jw;Fs ; fpoNky; mb 8¼ njd;tly; mb 15 cs;s kidAk; mjpy; 12 x8¼ mstpy; fl;b ,Uf;Fk; fhiu kl;lg ;gh t PL fjT epiyAk; rup. Gioa Nlhh; epu; ,y;iy 4tJ thh;L GJ epu; 291 \ nrhj;J Mfk.;
11.The learned Rent Controller, Srivilliputhur, in his order dated 23.04.2008 at paragraph Nos.15 and 16, has stated as follows: 15...... The 1st schedule property is shown as a vacant site. The property description run as follows:
“ ,jw;Fs;gl;l kid fpoNky; mb 18 njd;tly; mb 14½ cs;s kidapy; ,g;NghJ ,Uf;Fk ; jfuk; Nghl;l Nkw;Nfhg;G e Pq ;fyhf fhy;pkid khj;jpuk; jgrpy; rup. ”
16....... It is also pertinent to see that the 1st schedule property is shown as a vacant site which does not have any buildings. While so, for the 1st schedule property the Rent Control Act will not apply. Hence the eviction in respect of 1st schedule property in completely ruled out.
12.The learned Rent Controller has further referred to the cross-examination of P.W1 in paragraph No.26 of the order dated 23.04.2008 and the same is as follows:
26.From the reading of the cross examination of P.W1 would go to show that he filed the present eviction petition only for the purpose of evicting the respondent/tenant in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3/4
C.R.P.(MD) No.1225 of 2011
ground floor alone. He has not filed this application to evict him from the 1st and 2nd floor.......
13.From a reading of the order of the Rent Controller, it is clearly evident that the petition has been dismissed in respect of 1st schedule property since the petition 1st schedule property has been shown as a vacant site and the petition has been allowed only with reference to the 2nd schedule property. Now, by virtue of this amendment, the landlords seek to amend the 1st schedule property to include the building when the Rent Controller has clearly dismissed the petition in respect of the 1st schedule property on the ground that the 1st item of property is only a vacant site to which the provisions of Rent Control Act will not apply. The landlords are therefore trying to change the very cause of action and further overcome the lacuna and the findings of the Rent Controller.
14.It is clearly evident that the landlords in the guise of making an innocuous amendment are changing the very subject matter of the Rent Control Petition. The appellate authority has also taken note of this fact and dismissed the said application filed for amending the appeal grounds. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed in I.A.No.170 of 2008 in RCA.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Srivilliputhur, dated 25.01.2011.
15.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and the order passed in I.A.No.170 of 2008 in RCA.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Sub Court (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Srivilliputhur, is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
mm
To
The Subordinate Judge,(Rent Control Appellate Authority) Srivilliputhur.
AVS(CO)
TR(20.11.2019)4P 3C
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether allowing an amendment to include a building in a vacant site defeats the cause of action of the lower appellate authority dismissal.
Whether the revision petition is maintainable to challenge the dismissal of an application to amend grounds of appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1.Gnanaguru
2.Venkatesh Babu
3.Pushpalatha
4.Uma Maheswari
Murugesan
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
