This revision petition challenged an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte order. The High Court held the Appellate Authority heard both sides before passing the order and allowed the reversal of the lower court decision. The five-line judgment dismissed the petition outright finding no illegality.
Petitioner's been dismissed; no costs.
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.
CRP No.1417 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.12.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
CRP.No.1417 of 2019
B.Devendra Kumar Bhandari
..Petitioner
Vs.
I.Susai ..Respondent Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18/1960 as Amended by Act 23/1973 and 1/1980, to set aside the order dated 31.08.2018 passed in M.P.No.347 of 2018 in RCA No.545 of 2012 by the VIIth Judge, Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : Mr.N.A.Nissir Hussain for Mr.N.A.Nissar Ahmed
ORDER
The civil revision petition has been filed as against the order dated 31.08.2018 passed in M.P.No.347 of 2018 in RCA.No.545 of 2012 on the file of
the VII Judge, Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition to set aside the exparte order.
1/5
CRP No.1417 of 2019
2. The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent is a landlord. The
respondent filed a petition under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, to fix a fair rent for the petitioner's premises and the same was allowed and fixed a sum of Rs.52,546/- per month. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant preferred an appeal in RCA.No.530 of 2012, it is pending. At the same time, the landlord also filed an appeal in RCA.No.545 of 2012 for refixing of fair rent of the petitioner's premises. After hearing both side, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority fixed a fair rent at Rs.56,212/- per month for the petitioner premises. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the order dated 28.03.2018 passed in RCA.No.545 of 2012 as if the said order was passed without hearing the submission of the petitioner and he was set exparte in the trial.
3. On perusal of records revealed that on receipt of notice in RCA.No.545 of 2012, Mr.D.Dharamchand Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner and M/s.R.Md.Hidayathullah, the learned counsel for the respondent were appeared during trial. After hearing both side arguments, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority passed orders on merits in accordance with law. Therefore,
the petitioner was never set exparte before the learned Rent Control Appellate
2/5
CRP No.1417 of 2019
Authority and the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority passed orders, only after hearing both the counsel. Hence, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the Court below.
4. In view of the above, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No
costs.
09.12.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No ata
To
The VII Judge, Appellate Authority, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
3/5
CRP No.1417 of 2019
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.J,
ata
CRP.No.1417 of 2019
CRP No.1417 of 2019
09.12.2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed the impugned order without hearing the petitioner, rendering it ex parte.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
B. Devendra Kumar Bhandari
Susai
G.K. Ilineraiyan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
