High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
M.Gandhi v. C.Buckle Dorai - CRP.NPD.2099 OF 2007  RD-TN 2486 (25 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.07.2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
C.R.P.NPD.NO.2099 OF 2007
M.P.NO.1 OF 2007
M.Gandhi .. Petitioner Vs.
C.Buckle Dorai .. Respondent
This civil revision petition has been preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the order passed in RCA No.18 of 2004, dated 13.4.2007 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. For Petitioner : Mr.M.V.Muralidaran
For Respondent : Mr.M.Liagat Ali for Caveator
- - - -
A challenge is made to an order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore made in RCA No.18 of 2004, affirming the order of the Rent Controller, Coimbatore in I.A.No.411 of 2003, which was dismissed originally by the Rent Controller.
2.The court heard the learned counsel on either side. The respondent filed RCOP No.310 of 2000, seeking an order of eviction on the ground of willful default. The revision petitioner/tenant has entered appearance. Pending proceedings, in order to fix the quantum of rental and also for a direction to the tenant to deposit the entire arrears, the landlord has filed an application in IA No.45 of 2001 under Section 11(3) of the Act. The tenant was set ex parte. Following the same, he filed an application in I.A.No.411 of 2003 to set aside the ex parte order. On contest, the said application was allowed on condition of the petitioner making deposit of the entire arrears within the stipulated time. Since it was not done, the application was dismissed. Therefrom, the tenant filed RCA No.18 of 2004. The RCA was dismissed on 30.4.2004. The same was challenged in C.R.P.No.1456 of 2004. On the earlier occasion, the order of the appellate authority was set aside on condition of the petitioner/tenant making entire arrears of payment with further direction to the lower court to conduct enquiry thereon. Subsequently, on remittal, RCA No.18 of 2004 was taken up for enquiry and final orders have been passed, dismissing the RCA. Hence, this revision has arisen before this court.
3.The only contention that was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire arrears have been paid and as such, there are no arrears at all and under these circumstances, I.A. No.411 of 2003, seeking to set aside the ex parte decree should be ordered and I.A.No.45 of 2001, an application filed under Section 11(3) of the Act must be enquired and a direction has got to be issued to the Rent Controller for enquiry of the application in IA No.45 of 2001 filed under Section 11(3) of the Act.
4.Contrary to the above, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that in I.A.No.45 of 2001, an order came to be passed, directing the tenant to make deposit within the stipulated time; that instead of complying with the order, an application to set aside the ex parte order was filed, but the said application was dismissed; and that the only reason that was adduced in the application to set aside the ex parte order was that he was not doing well and hence, he could not attend the court, etc.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.