AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Periya Karuppiah, J.—This Revision has been filed against the order, dated 19.12.2009, passed by the Principal District Judge,
Puducherry in I.A. No. 12/2009 in R.C.A. No. 3/2009, filed by the Petitioner to dismiss the appeal at a preliminary stage.
Heard the submissions of Mr. P. Rajkumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. C. Ravichandran for the first Respondent.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in his arguments, would submit that the lower Court has failed to see that the appeal preferred by the first
Respondent in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2009 was not maintainable while the second Respondent was not alive. He would further submit that the lower
Court had not given an opportunity to cross-examine the newly impleaded party before the lower Court on the affidavit filed by first Respondent.
He would also submit that in an earlier occasion, this Court had passed an Order in C.R.P (PD) No. 63 of 2006 that the matter should have been
decided purely on evidence and not influenced by the findings reached in the said Civil Revision Petition and the said instruction was not followed
by the Rent Controller and therefore, the appeal itself is not sustainable. He would further submit in his arguments that the said appeal is therefore
liable to be dismissed at the preliminary stage itself when there is no locus standi for preceding the appeal against the correct person. Therefore, he
would request this Court to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court and to allow the revision and consequently to allow the application
in I.A. No. 12 of 2009 in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2009.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the first Respondent would submit in his arguments that the lower Court has correctly come to a conclusion
of dismissing the said application in I.A. No. 12 of 2009 filed for dismissing the appeal at a preliminary stage, since there was no provision in Rules
12 and 13 of the Puducherry Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules, 1980 nor under the inherent power of Section 151 of CPC to dismiss the
appeal at a preliminary stage. He would also submit in his arguments that the Petitioner was quiet while impleadment was ordered and therefore he
cannot maintain such an application, even if he is permitted in law. He would further submit that subsequent to the dismissal of the Application in
I.A. No. 12 of 2009 on 19.10.2009, the Petitioner has filed yet another application in I.A. No. 10 of 2010 in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2009 on
10.2.2010, seeking for the relief of permitting the Petitioner to file additional proof affidavit supported by documents to adduce additional
evidence. He would also submit that the Petitioner has produced three documents as additional evidence and the lower Court has dismissed the
said application. He would further submit in his arguments that the first Respondent has filed a proof affidavit before the Rent Controller on
4.9.2007 and on the said proof affidavit, he was cross-examined on 1.4.2010 by the Petitioner before the lower Court in the appeal itself and
thereby he had participated in the appeal proceedings. He would further request this Court that the Petitioner cannot maintain the present revision
against the order passed by the lower Court in the application to dismiss the appeal at a preliminary stage and accordingly the revision may be
dismissed.
I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side.
The Petitioner, who was the second Respondent in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2009, has filed application in I.A. No. 12/2009 before the lower Court
seeking for dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable at a preliminary stage. The reasons submitted by the Petitioner were to the effect that the
first Respondent herein has no locus standi to proceed with the Rent Control proceedings as the third Respondent was impleaded as the legal
representative of the second Respondent and the second Respondent is not the owner of the property and therefore, the appeal should have been
dismissed as not maintainable. In the said application, he has sought for the help of the provisions of Rules 12 and 13 of the Puducherry Buildings
(Lease & Rent Control) Rules, 1980 and the provisions of Section 151 of CPC Code.
On a careful perusal of Rules 12 and 13 of the Puducherry Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules, 1980, this Court cannot find any clue to the
effect that the appeal can be dismissed at a preliminary stage on its maintainability. Apart from that, the inherent power of the Court u/s 151 of
CPC cannot also be drawn for the purpose of disposal of the appeal in a preliminary stage. The Puducherry Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act
and Rules, 1980 are self-contained Code and there is no provision to dispose the appeal in a preliminary stage. The appeal has been preferred
against the decision reached by the lower Court in passing an order based on the evidence adduced before it.
Even if the third Respondent is not considered to be the correct legal representative of the deceased second Respondent, it has to be agitated
only at the time of full-fledged hearing of the appeal. Apart from that, the Petitioner himself had participated in the appeal by filing an application in
I.A. No. 10 of 2010, seeking for production of documents by way of additional evidence. Subsequently, he himself had cross-examined the first
Respondent before the said Court on the proof affidavit filed by the first Respondent herein before the Rent Controller on 1.4.2010.
In the said circumstances, the present revision questioning the order passed by the lower Court in the application in I.A. No. 12 of 2009 to
dismiss the appeal at a preliminary stage, cannot be maintained. The Petitioner himself has been barred from questioning the said order passed by
the lower Court. The lower Court has elaborately discussed the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly come to the conclusion of not
allowing the application to dismiss the appeal at a preliminary stage, both on facts and in law.
Therefore, I find that there is no valid reason put forth by the Petitioner to interfere with the order, dated 19.10.2009, passed in I.A. No. 12 of
2009, passed by the lower Court and accordingly, the Revision fails and it is liable to be dismissed.
In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.