Dismissed

A.S. Shahjahan v. Rajamani

Madras HC8 Oct 2021CRP/2194/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of a summons application. The Court held that the proper procedure to fix fair rent is filing a petition under Section 4 of the TN Buildings Act, not summoning a municipal official, and thus allowed costs against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; costs of Rs.5,000 awarded to the respondent.

A.S. Shahjahan Vs Rajamani — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 08.10.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶5

C.R.P.NO.2194 OF 2021 AND C.M.P.NO.16625 OF 2021

¶6

A.S.Shahjahan ... Petitioner/ Petitioner

¶7

Vs Rajamani ... Respondent/ Respondent

¶8

PRAYER :

¶9

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the Fair and Decreetal Order made in I.A. No. 6 of 2021 in R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 2019 and dated 23.08.2021 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Erode.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. M.Arunachalam

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

This Petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 6 of 2021 in R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 2019 by the Learned Principal District Munsif, Erode on 23.08.2021.

¶13

2. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that I.A. No. 6 of 2021 was filed under Order XVI Rule 1(2) and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code granting leave for taking summon to the witness, viz., Assistant Revenue Officer, Corporation Zone-2, Periyasemur, Erode. The reason for filing this Petition is that the Petitioner filed the main R.C.O.P. No. 5 of 2021 for depositing rent into the Court. The Respondent put forth a fabulous sum of rent and that was denied by the Petitioner. The rent payable is Rs.10,000/- per month and not as alleged by the Respondent. In view of the dispute regarding the rent payable, the Court is obliged to fix the rent. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the appropriate authority from the City Municipal Corporation and elicit information regarding the annual rental value of the building and also to guide the Court regarding the rent preferable for the petition mentioned property. This petition was contested by the Respondent. On considering the rival submissions, the Learned Principal District Munsif, Erode dismissed the Petition. Against the said

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

dismissal order, this Petition is filed.

¶16

3.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent / Land lord is claiming Rs.33,000/- per month as rent. As per the Petitioner, the monthly rent payable is Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, it is necessary to find out what would be the appropriate rent to the premises by summoning the aforesaid official from the City Municipal Corporation.

¶17

4.Considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the records.

¶18

5.R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2019 was filed by the Petitioner under Section 8 (5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for depositing the rent claiming that monthly rent is Rs.10,000/-. If the Petitioner feels that monthly rent claimed by the Respondent at Rs.33,000/- is too high and monthly rent is only Rs.10,000/-, he has to challenge the quantum of monthly rent or file a Petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixing fair rent. He cannot seek to summon the official from City Municipal Corporation to produce Assistant Revenue Officer to find out the annual rental value.

¶19

6.There are well defined procedures under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixing fair rent. The aforesaid official will no way help the Court in fixing the fair rent. Without resorting to filing a Petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for fixing fair rent, filing of this Application is nothing but an exercise intending to protract the proceedings and causing unnecessary hardship to the Respondent. Therefore, this Petition is deserved to be dismissed with contempt and costs.

¶20

7.In this view of the matter, the order of the Learned Principal District Munsif, Erode is confirmed and this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Respondent by the Petitioner. Only on payment of cost, the Petitioner may be permitted to proceed further with the original R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2019. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

To 1. The Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.

¶27

2. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶28

+1cc to Mr. M.Arunachalam , Advocate, S.R.No.52974

¶29

C.R.P.NO.2194 OF 2021 AND C.M.P.NO.16625 OF 2021

¶30

KK(CO) PM/28/10/2021

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

A.S. Shahjahan v. Rajamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.S. Shahjahan v. Rajamani

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

H.Vimal Chand Bathala Vs K.L.Kiran

N.Henry Vs Regional Transport Officer/Authority

Deepika @ Diyanah Vs Wahed Hussain

Svm. Seyed Ali Fathima Vs S.M.M.Seyed Ali Fatimamal

R.Janakiraman Vs C.B.M.Sakunthala Memorial Trust

J.Janaki Vs a.Senthil Kumar