Madras High Court
S.Ramasamy Nadar vs S.Jayathilakaraj on 2 February, 2023
C.R.P.No.207 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P. No.207 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.1671 of 2023
S.Ramasamy Nadar .. Petitioner
Vs
S.Jayathilakaraj .. Respondent
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order and decretal order in
M.P.No.1 of 2022 in R.C.O.P.No.61 of 2018, on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Alandur, dated 23.09.2022.
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Anuradha Balaji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
C.R.P.No.207 of 2023
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decretal
order passed in M.P.No.1 of 2022 in R.C.O.P 61 of 2018 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif at Alandur, dated 23.09.2022.
2. The revision petitioner is the respondent in R.C.O.P.No.61 of 2018
and the tenant respondent/landlord instituted the eviction proceedings on the
ground of owners occupant. The rent control proceedings was initiated in the
year 2018 and it is pending for the past four years. While so, the revision
petitioner/tenant filed M.P.No.1 of 2022 seeking the relief to reject or return the
proof Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent/landlord before the RCOP
Court which is contrary to the procedure contemplated under Tamilnadu Rent
Control Act. The respondent/landlord filed a proof affidavit in support of his
contentions in the RCOP petitioner filed. It will not make any change in the
case of the petitioner or the respondent and accepting the proof affidavit which
is nothing but reiterating the contentions in the petition would not cause any
prejudice to the interest of either of the parties and ultimately, the Court has to
adjudicate the issues on merits and in accordance with law and based on the
documents and evidences.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.207 of 2023
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the High
Court in the case of Marry Kutty Koshy vs. Hemalatha Pushpakaran
[MANU/TN/4460/2018] in C.R.P.No. 3770 of 2009 dated 20.08.2018 and the
RCOP relied on the subsequent judgment in the case of P.Ramachandran vs.
Tayub Haji Ismail in C.R.P(PD).No.319 of 2019 dated 30.04.2019.
Considering both the judgments, the RCOP court came to the conclusion that
any evidences/records filed before the Court cannot be rejected as it forms a
part of the court record and accordingly, the petition filed by the Civil Revision
Petitioner was dismissed.
4. It is not in dispute that the respondent/landlord instituted proceedings
for eviction. The petition averments are reiterated by way of a proof affidavit
during the pendency of the RCOP. Acceptance of such proof affidavit by the
Rent Controller would not cause any prejudice to the revision petitioner/tenant
and he is liberty to adjudicate the issued on merits and in accordance with law.
Contrarily by raising such hypothetical grounds in the rent control proceedings,
no party can be allowed to drag on the proceedings. Interlocutory applications
are filed with an idea to prolong and protract the proceedings, which at no
circumstances, can be encouraged by the Courts. Even if such applications are
filed that has to be disposed of by the courts as early as possible and if the court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.207 of 2023
found that if such applications are filed to drag on the proceedings, then
maximum cost is to be imposed.
5. Rule is to take the case whenever it is listed for hearing. Adjournment
is an exception. Thus adjournments cannot be granted in a routine manner and
even in extraordinary circumstances such adjournments are to be granted by
recording reasons which must be genuine. Routine grant of adjournments are
to be averted since it will increase the longevity of the litigation. Either of the
parties will make an attempt to achieve their goal in an indirect manner. Thus
courts are expected to dispose of the cases in consistent manner by not allowing
the parties to take unnecessary adjournments on flimsy grounds or by filing
frivolous interlocutory applications and keep the same pending for long time.
6. In the present case, the rent control proceedings are pending for the
past more that four years and the interlocutory application now filed in the year
2022 became unnecessary and more so the trial court rightly formed an opinion
that filing of Proof Affidavit has no bar under law. That apart, the Proof
Affidavit filed by the respondent/landlord would not cause any prejudice to the
interest of the petitioner/tenant and he has to adjudicate the issues on merits.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.207 of 2023
7. Considering the fact that the proceeding is pending for more than
four years, the Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the case, as
expeditiously as possible.
8. With the abovesaid directions, this Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
02.02.2023
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.
Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
nhs
:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.207 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
nhs
C.R.P. No.207 of 2023
and
C.M.P.No.1671 of 2023
02.02.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
