Madras High Court
E.Kanniappan vs N.Chandrasekaran on 13 March, 2023
C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.2748 of 2022
E.Kanniappan ...Petitioner
Vs
1. N.Chandrasekaran
2. N.Hemalatha
3. N.Uma
4. R.Vijayalakshmi ..Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1973 praying to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 09.09.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.24 of 2017 on the
file of the Subordinate Court at Poonamallee confirming the judgment and
decree dated 09.06.2017 passed in R.C.O.P.No.40 of 2010 on the file of the
Principal District Munsit at Poonamallee.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Chitra Sampath,
Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Sai Shankar
For Respondents : Mr.B.Ganesha Moorthy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022
ORDER
Challenging the order dated 09.09.2021 passed in R.C.A.No.24 of
2007 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamalee, the tenant has preferred
this Civil Revision Petition.
2.Originally, R.C.O.P.No.40 of 2010 was filed by the
respondents/landlords for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment
of rent. The said R.C.O.P. was allowed on the ground of default, own use
and occupation. Challenging that, the tenant has preferred R.C.A.24 of 2007
on the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee. On hearing both sides,
the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, confirming the finding of the
Rent Controller. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below,
the tenant has preferred this revision.
3.Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant submits that
already O.S.No.126 of 1999 was filed by the landlords/respondents herein on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, for termination of tenancy
and recovery of possession and the same was decreed in favour of the
landlords/respondents on 27.09.2004 on merits. Till date, the said decree is
in force. So, the landlords are not entitled to invoke the provisions under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act. As per the judgement
passed in the earlier suit in O.S.No.126 of 1999, the tenancy was terminated.
So, the petitioner herein is no longer a tenant under the respondents/landlord
for complying with the orders of the Courts below. Both the Courts below
have erroneously ordered eviction by invoking the Rent Control proceedings.
Hence, he prays for setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority.
4. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondents argues that
at the time of filing of the earlier suit, the provisions of the said Rent Control
Act was not extended in respect of the area in dispute. Subsequently, due to
the jurisdictional change, the Village was upgraded as Municipality, due to
which, the Rent Control Act got automatically extended. Therefore, the
respondents/landlords had filed R.C.O.P for eviction by invoking the said
Rent Control Act and the Courts below have rightly allowed the petition and
ordered eviction, which needs no interference by this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has produced an
order of this Court dated 13.12.2022 made in C.R.P.Nos.1616 and 1617 of
2019, wherein, the learned Judge has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in C.A.No.2816 of 2022 in the case of Shankarlal Nadani Vs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022
Sohanlal Jain in which the judgment reported in 2017 (4) SCC 202
(Rajender Bansal and Others Vs Bhuru (Dead) Through legal
representatives and Others) was relied on, wherein, it has been held as
follows:
“18.1. Rights of the parties stand crystallised on the
date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the law
applicable on the date of filing of the suit will continue to
apply until the suit is disposed of or adjudicated.
18.2. If during the pendency of the suit, the Rent Act
becomes applicable to the premises in question, that would be
of no consequence and it would not take away the jurisdiction
of the civil court to dispose of a suit validly instituted.
18.3. In order to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court,
there must be a specific provision in the Act taking away the
jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of those cases also
which were validly instituted before the date when protection
of the Rent Act became available in respect of the said
area/premises/tenancy.
18.4. In case the aforesaid position is not accepted and
the protection of the Rent Act is extended even in respect of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022
suit validly instituted prior in point of time when there was no
such protection under the Act, it will have the consequence of
making the decree, that is obtained prior to the Rent Act
becoming applicable to the said area/premises, unexecutable
after the application of these Rent Acts in respect of such
premises. This would not be in consonance with the
legislative intent.”
6. Relying on the said proposition, coming to the facts of the case in
hand, the suit was filed by the landlords/respondents herein in O.S.No.126 of
1999 and the decree was passed in favour of landlords on 27.09.2004. As per
the decree, the tenancy was terminated, said decree is still in force. The
revision petitioner/tenant is no longer a tenant under the respondents herein.
At that time, the Rent Control Act would not be applicable to the place where
the rented property was situated. Therefore, the respondents/landlords are
entitled to work out their remedy by executing the decree in O.S.No.126 of
1999 and not through the R.C.O.P proceedings. Therefore, the findings
rendered by the Courts below are set aside, as Rent Control Proceedings is
not applicable to the facts of this case, since already tenancy was terminated
much prior to the extension of the jurisdiction of the rent control
proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022
7.Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,
Poonamallee in R.C.A.No.24 of 2017 dated 09.09.2021 is set aside and the
Civil Revision Petition is hereby allowed. Liberty is given to the respondent
to work out his remedy by filing appropriate execution application before the
Execution Court as early as possible in the manner known to law. The period
pertaining to the R.C.O.P proceedings is ordered to be excluded. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13.03.2023
Speaking Order: Yes
Index : Yes/No
srn
To
1. The learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee
2. The Principal District Munsif, Poonamallee.
3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
srn
C.R.P (PD). No.516 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.2748 of 2022
13.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
