High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Parvathiammal v. V.S.Shanmugham - CRP.NPD.1517 of 2007  RD-TN 1736 (4 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
C.R.P.NPD.NOs. 1517 and 1518 OF 2007
M.P.NO.1 of 2007
Parvathiammal ...Petr., in both CRPs. Vs.
V.S.Shanmugham ...Respdt. in both CRPs.
These Civil Revision petitions are filed against the common order dated 18.10.2005 made in C.F.R.Nos.25865 and 30467 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif (District Judge,Trainee, Coimbatore). For petitioner: Mr.B.Soundarapandian ---
O R D E R
These Civil Revision Petitions have been arisen from the order of the IV Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.
2. The petitioner has filed two applications in RCOP.No.216 of 2003. One is to condone the delay in filing the other application under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act 1922 and the other application has been filed praying for an order of vacant site out of total extent of 8 cents to be sold to the petitioner at a reasonable cost.
3. Though the respondent was given an opportunity to file a counter, no counter affidavit has been filed.
4. The petitioner before the forum below is the respondent in RCOP and pending RCOP, the petitioner filed an application stating that he was the lessee over the vacant site. Under such circumstances, it is the case whether she is entitled to raise a question under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and in doing so, a delay has occasioned and hence it has to be condoned.
5. The respondent before the forum below raised a question as to the maintainability of the application. The Rent Control original petition was filed under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1974. The petition under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1922 would arise only in a suit for eviction. A petition under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act in a rent control proceedings would not arise and further no question of condoning the delay would arise.
6. Under such circumstances, the lower court is perfectly correct in dismissing both the applications. Hence both the Civil Revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, MP.No.1 of 2007 is also dismissed. VJY
The IV Additional District
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.