Dismissed

Ashok Kumar Jaini v. the Madras Kirana Merchants

Madras HC20 Feb 2019REV.APPL/38/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants filed a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC regarding the dismissal of a civil revision petition challenging eviction. They claimed an error on the record concerning the purpose of their alternative property but found insufficient. The review was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The review application was dismissed, and the order dated 13.02.2017 in CRP.NPD.No.691 of 2014 was confirmed.

Ashok Kumar Jaini Vs the Madras Kirana Merchants — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 12.02.2019

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 20.02.2019

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶7

Review Application No.38 of 2017 in C.R.P.(NPD) No.691 of 2014 1.Ashok Kumar Jain 2.Prakash D Jain .. Petitioners vs

¶8

The Madras Kirana Merchants Association Rep.by its Secretary Ramesh Kumar Rathore No.18, Audiappa Naicken Street, Chennai 600 079. .. Respondent

¶9

Prayer: This Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 144 of Civil Procedure Code praying to review the order passed in CRP.NPD.No.691 of 2014 dated 13.02.2017.

¶10

For Petitioners : Mr.A.E.Ravi Chandran For Respondent : Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan for Mr.V.Ragavachari

¶11

The present review application has been filed to review the order dated

¶12

13.12.2017 in CRP.NPD.No.691 of 2014 on the ground that while passing the above order, there was an error apparent on the face of record.

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

¶15

The petitioners herein are the tenant of the respondent who have subjected the RCOP proceedings by the respondent herein under Section 10(3)(c)(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959. By an order dated 18.12.2001, the said R.C.O.P. came to be dismissed. Against which, the respondent filed an appeal in RCA.No.1619 of 2004. The said R.C.A. was allowed on 02.01.2014.

¶16

CRP.NPD.No.691 of 2014 to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 02.01.2011 in RCA.No.1619 of 2004.

¶17

The above civil revision petition was dismissed on 13.02.2017. which

¶18

is now sought to be reviewed by the petitioners in the present review application.

¶19

It is stated that there are an error apparent on the face of record in

¶20

the order dated 13.02.2017 and therefore, liable to be reviewed.

¶21

It is specifically stated that the Court committed an error by observing that the petitioners herein are having grocery shop in their mother's property at No.17, Strotten Muthia Mudali Street, Chennai -79. The

¶22

respondent association wanted to expand the premises only for the purpose of http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

starting the medical clinic in the first floor. A clinic has been running after the RCOP was filed and therefore, the observation that after filing of the petition also, they started to give treatment to the poor every year. Number of patients are increased and that has been mentioned in the additional affidavit. Except this building, the respondent's association is having no other building. As already stated that the first floor has been used as medical clinic. Now the petition mentioned premises is vacated and they are proposed to use the same as dialysis centre. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the basis in original RCOP is different from the basis on which, the order sustaining the eviction has been made in the civil revision petition.

¶26

So-called error apparent on the face of record which has been stated

¶27

that the reason for the present application appears to be incorrect in view of

¶28

the fact that the petitioners herein particularly, the first respondent during his cross examination, dated 11.07.2001 has admitted as follows:

¶29

“jd;uh$; epth!; vd;gJ vd; jhahUf;F brhe;jkhd fl;olk; mjpy; ehd; vd; jhahUld; FoapUe;J tUfpnwd;. vd; \j;j rnfhjuh; 2tJ vjph;kDjhuh; nkw;go fl;olj;jpy; trpj;J tUfpwhh;. vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gl;l nghl;nlh me;j jd;uh$; epth!; fl;olj;jpy; jiu jsk; Kjy; jsk;/ ,uz;lhk; jsk;/ \d;whk; jsk;/ ehd;fhk; jsk; cs;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. nkw;go jd;uh$; epth!; fl;olj;jpy; jiu jsj;jpy; filfSf;F vd rpy

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

¶32

gFjpfs; fl;lg;gl;Ls;sJ. ”

¶33

Thus, it is clear that the respondents were having properties and even if vacated from the premises they could carry on their business. In fact, after the appeal in RCA was allowed, the second petitioner herein had resisted the proceeding under Section 47 of the Act which was also challenged in CRP.NPD.No.2005 of 2018. The said civil revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2018.

¶34

While dismissing the above civil revision petition, the Court had

¶35

granted six months time to the second petitioner to vacate the premises and to hand over the premises to the respondent. The petitioners filed SLP Nos.33492 and 42915 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said SLPs were dismissed on 04.01.2019.

¶36

The first petitioner had also filed another CRP.NPD.No.4314 of 2017 to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 18.08.2017 in E.A.in S.R.No.44801 of 2017 in E.P. No.308 of 2017 in RCOP.No.2247 of 1999 on the file of the XI Small Causes Court, Chennai and the same was also dismissed on 12.12.2017.

¶37

Now, the respondent seeks to extend the period even though Special Leave Petition was filed against the order dated 16.07.2018 in http://www.judis.nic.in

¶38

¶39

CRP.NPD.No.2005 of 2018 and CRP.No.2028 of 2018, were dismissed on 04.01.2019 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP.Nos.33492 and 42915 of 2018.

¶40

In view of the above, I find no error apparent on the face of record. Further, the issue has attained finality. Therefore, the order dated 13.02.2017 in CRP.NPD.No.691 of 2014 is hereby confirmed. Consequently, the review

¶41

application is dismissed. No cost.

¶42

.02.2019

¶43

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking : Non Speaking kkd To

¶44

The Secretary Ramesh Kumar Rathore The Madras Kirana Merchants Association No.18, Audiappa Naicken Street, Chennai 600 079.

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

C.SARAVANAN,J.

kkd

Pre-Delivery Order in
Rev.Application No.38 of 2017
in CRP NPD NO.691 OF 2014
20.02.2019

¶50

http://www.judis.nic.in

Ashok Kumar Jaini v. the Madras Kirana Merchants

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Jaini v. the Madras Kirana Merchants

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

Arunachalam Vs Ponnusamy

T.Srinivasan Vs T.Rangappan

Rajesekaran Vs Venkatesan

Conservation Assistant Vs Ranachandira Ramanuja Dasar.

Mr.Kawarlal Vs Mr.Anbarasan

K.Mohankumar Vs Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.