Dismissed

M/S Redsun Marbles Co. v. Mrs.Karthika Devi

Madras HC11 Jan 2023CRP/3796/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order rejecting a tenant's application to deposit rent. The Court upheld the lower court's view that rent deposit petitions requiring substantive adjudication belong with the Rent Controller, not the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; Trial Court directed to dispose suit within three months.

M/S Redsun Marbles Co. Vs Mrs.Karthika Devi — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.No.3796 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.01.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.No.3796 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.19405 of 2016

¶7

M/s Redsun Marbles Co., represented by its Partner K.S.Subramaniyan

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Karthika Devi

¶11

Kanchana Mala

¶12

Sakthivel Vikranth Masilamani

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to allow this Civil Revision Petition and set aside the Fair and Decreetal order passed in I.A.No.4479 of 2015 in O.S.No.1552 of 2015 dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Hon'ble XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶15

For Petitioner : V.R.Appaswamee

¶16

Page 1 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.R.P.No.3796 of 2016

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the fair and

¶20

Decreetal order passed in I.A.No.4479 of 2015 in O.S.No.1552 of 2015 dated 09.02.2016 passed by the XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition seeking permission to deposit the rent for the suit property.

¶21

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants. The case of the petitioner is that the petition premises was let out in favour of the petitioner on monthly rental basis. The petition premises is a vacant land. The petitioner had also paid rent for the petition premises. In the vacant land, the petitioner had put up superstructure in the suit property and obtained electricity service connection and is carrying on the business of marbles, granite and natural stone in the suit property. The vacant site has been developed by constructing buildings with the knowledge and consent of the respondents herein. While being so, the respondents caused legal notice, thereby calling upon the petitioner to remove the articles and structures from the suit property. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit for injunction

¶22

Page 2 of 5

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

C.R.P.No.3796 of 2016

¶25

restraining the respondents from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and dispossessing him from the suit property without any due process of law. Pending suit, the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to deposit the rent for the suit property.

¶26

The case of the respondents is that there was no tenancy with the petitioner. The petitioner was permitted to store the marbles. However, he had put up construction without any permission or consent from the respondents. The petitioner is squatting over the suit property and paying only a sum of Rs.5,000/- as charges. Therefore, the respondents vehemently denied the landlord tenant relationship.

¶27

Even assuming that the petitioner is the tenant under the respondents, he cannot be permitted to deposit the rents in the suit. The petitioner ought to have filed a separate petition before the learned Rent Controller to deposit the rent, if he proves that he is the tenant under the respondents.

¶28

Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.R.P.No.3796 of 2016

¶30

Therefore, the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Court below and this revision is liable to be dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶32

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶33

11.01.2023

¶34

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No mn

¶35

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶36

Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

C.R.P.No.3796 of 2016

¶38

¶39

¶40

The XI Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

¶41

C.R.P.No.3796 of 2016 and C.M.P.No.19405 of 2016

¶42

11.01.2023

¶43

Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/S Redsun Marbles Co. v. Mrs.Karthika Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Redsun Marbles Co. v. Mrs.Karthika Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janakirama Reddy (Deceased) Vs Chakrapani Reddy (Deceased)

Pongiyammal Vs v.Kamalam

Shempark Public School Vs M/S.Edusmart Services P Ltd.

Rajamanickam Vs Natana Kunjithapatham

A.Tharsees Vs a.Arokiasamy

M. Venkatesan, Vs Jayapriya Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.