Madras High Court
Sirajudeen vs P.Haja Nasubudeen on 24 January, 2022
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 24.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD) Nos.2356 & 2712 to 2717 of 2018
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.542 of 2018 :-
1.Sirajudeen
2.Subu Kanudeen .. Petitioners
-vs-
1.P.Haja Nasubudeen
2.S.Kumar .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the order and decreetal order dated 15.09.2017 made in I.A.No.
136 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.11 of 2015 on the file of Rent Controller
(District Munsif Court), Ramanathapuram.
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.610 of 2018 :-
1.Sirajudeen
2.Subu Kanudeen .. Petitioners
-vs-
___________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
1.P.Haja Nasubudeen
2.Ganesan .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the order and decreetal order dated 15.09.2017 made in I.A.No.
131 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.17 of 2015 on the file of Rent Controller
(District Munsif Court), Ramanathapuram.
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.611 of 2018 :-
1.Sirajudeen
2.Subu Kanudeen .. Petitioners
-vs-
1.P.Haja Nasubudeen
2.K.Kumar .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the order and decreetal order dated 15.09.2017 made in I.A.No.
132 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.16 of 2015 on the file of Rent Controller
(District Munsif Court), Ramanathapuram.
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.612 of 2018 :-
1.Sirajudeen
2.Subu Kanudeen .. Petitioners
-vs-
___________
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
1.P.Haja Nasubudeen
2.Sethuraman .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the order and decreetal order dated 15.09.2017 made in I.A.No.
133 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 2015 on the file of Rent Controller
(District Munsif Court), Ramanathapuram.
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.613 of 2018 :-
1.Sirajudeen
2.Subu Kanudeen .. Petitioners
-vs-
1.P.Haja Nasubudeen
2.K.Karmegam .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the order and decreetal order dated 15.09.2017 made in I.A.No.
134 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.14 of 2015 on the file of Rent Controller
(District Munsif Court), Ramanathapuram.
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.614 of 2018 :-
1.Sirajudeen
2.Subu Kanudeen .. Petitioners
-vs-
___________
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
1.P.Haja Nasubudeen
2.M.Mohamed Maideen .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the order and decreetal order dated 15.09.2017 made in I.A.No.
135 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.12 of 2015 on the file of Rent Controller
(District Munsif Court), Ramanathapuram.
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) No.615 of 2018 :-
1.Sirajudeen
2.Subu Kanudeen .. Petitioners
-vs-
1.P.Haja Nasubudeen
2.M.Vellaramachandran .. Respondents
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to
set aside the order and decreetal order dated 15.09.2017 made in I.A.No.
140 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2015 on the file of Rent Controller
(District Munsif Court), Ramanathapuram.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Pushpanathan
(In all CRPs)
For R1 : Mr.S.A.Ajmal Khan
(In all CRPs)
___________
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
For R2 : No appearance
(In all CRPs)
******
COMMON ORDER
These revisions are filed challenging the orders, dated 15.09.2017
passed by the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif),
Ramanathapuram, in I.A.Nos.136, 131 to 135 and 140 of 2015 in
R.C.O.P.Nos.11, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12 and 13 of 2015 respectively.
2.The common question involved in all the above Civil Revision
Petitions is whether the revision petitioners could maintain an application
under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Rent
Controller considering the fact that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1960 is a complete code in itself to which the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply.
3.The common facts in all the above Civil Revision Petitions are
that the 2nd respondent/tenants had been inducted under the mother of the
1st petitioner and the 1st respondent herein. She had been collecting the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
rent through her husband. While so, she passed away and thereafter, her
husband continued to collect the rents for and on behalf of other legal
representatives. After his demise, there was a default in the payment of
rents and therefore, the 1st respondent, who is his elder son, had stepped
in to file petitions to evict the tenants in respect of the different demised
premises on the ground of willful default.
4.While the petitions were so pending, the revision petitioners
herein had taken out an application stating that the 1st petitioner is the
owner of the demised premises and the 2nd respondent in each of the
cases are the tenants under him and not under the 1st respondent. The
petitioners would further contend that the 1st respondent had manipulated
and fabricated the documents and had brought out a sale deed as if the
same had been signed by the 1st respondent and separate proceedings
have been initiated in O.S.No.59 of 2007 to set aside these deeds.
Therefore, in order to protect their interest, the petitioners sought have
themselves impleaded. These applications have been dismissed by the
learned Rent Controller relying on the judgment in M.Paul Raj vs.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
N.Paramasivam and another [(2009) 6 MLJ 985] wherein, the learned
Judge of this Court had held that the provisions of Order I Rule 10 would
not apply and these are the orders that have been challenged before this
Court.
5.As already said, the issue involved is “Whether the provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure would apply in respect of proceedings
before the Rent Controller”. The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1960 is a self-contained Act providing for the various
contingencies. It has been time and again held by this Court as well as
by the Apex Court that since the procedure before the Rent Controller is
summary in nature, the intricate procedures contemplated in the Code of
Civil Procedure is not applicable to the Rent Control Proceedings. The
1st respondent herein has initiated the Rent Control proceedings against
the 2nd respondent in each of the cases on the ground that these
respondents, who are tenants have committed a willful default in the
payments of rents. The 2nd respondent has clearly narrated in the petition
how he as a co-owner has initiated the proceedings.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
6.It is needless to state that under the Rent Control Act, a landlord
is defined as a person who receives or is entitled to receive the rent of the
building. In fact, the explanation to the definition would further expand
that where a landlord sublets the building, he will be the landlord of the
sublessee. Therefore, the ownership of the property is immaterial for
initiating proceedings under the Rent Control Act. That apart, the
petitioners herein have not stated as to why the 1st respondent cannot
initiate the eviction proceedings or how they claim the exclusive right to
initiate proceedings.
7.This Court, in an unreported judgment in the case of
S.Meganathan vs. Sankaran @ Sankaramoorthy and Others
[C.R.P(NPD) No.2324 of 2009, dated 18.09.2017], had discussed the
issue at length. The learned Single Judge has also referred to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Richard Lee vs. Girish Soni
and another reported in 2017 4 LW 78 and distinguished the same by
stating that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by itself had suo motu exercised
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
the rights under Order I Rule 10 to implead a party and the judgment has
not laid down a ratio that the provisions of Order I Rule 10 would be
applicable in the case of rent control proceedings.
8.I concur with the view taken by the learned Judge. In the case
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the lessee was a partnership firm and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had suo motu invoked the provisions of
Order I Rule 10 to implead all the partners of the firm so as to have a
binding order. Such is not the facts of instant case. Therefore, in the
light of the above, I do no find any reason to interfere with the orders
dated 15.09.2017 passed by the learned Rent Controller (District
Munsif), Ramanathapuram, and they are, accordingly, confirmed.
Consequently, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
24.01.2022
Index : Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking Order
abr
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 & 610 to 615 of 2018
P.T.ASHA, J.
abr
Note:-
In view of the present lock down owing
to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of
the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
Advocate / litigant concerned.
To
The Rent Controller (District Munsif),
Ramanathapuram.
C.R.P.(PD) (MD) Nos.542 &
610 to 615 of 2018
Dated: 24.01.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
