M. Paul Raj vs N. Paramasivam and The Executive Officer, Incorporated and Uncorporated Devasams

M. Venugopal, J.—The civil revision petitioner/appellant has preferred this civil revision petition as against the order passed in I.A. No. 10

of 2008 in R.C.A. No. 16 of 2004 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District (learned appellate

authority) in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to

implead the Executive Officer, Incorporated and uncorporated Devasams, Suchindram, Kanyakumari District.

The learned appellate authority namely the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, while passing orders in I.A.

No. 10 of 2008 has come to the conclusion that the proposed party namely the second respondent Devasom Board is not necessary or a proper

party to the appeal proceedings and resultantly, dismissed the application.

According to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, the learned appellate authority, has dismissed the I.A. No. 10 of 2080 filed by the

revision petitioner in R.C.A. No. 16 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, without considering the merits of the

application and further that, he is proceeding with the main appeal and moreover, P.W.1 has admitted before the learned Rent Controller that the

site of the building No. 1-70C is owned by the respondent/petitioner and the Devasom Board and in the absence of the Devasom Board as

necessary party in the petition, the matter cannot be proceeded with in an effective way and that the FCDE denoted in the plan belongs to

Devasom Board and that the petition in R.C.O.P. No. 43 of 1999 has been filed without knowing the exact area of the petitioned property and the

boundaries thereto and that the southern half which belongs to Devasom Board has been suppressed and the southern half of the suit property has

been wrongly stated as ''Road'' and that for the southern half, Devasom Board is collecting rent from the revision petitioner/appellant and therefore,

the Devasom Board is mandatorily an essential party and the same cannot be dispensed with on any score and that these aspects have not been

appreciated by the learned appellate authority namely the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, while passing orders in I.A. No. 10 of

2008 in a proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition to promote

substantial cause of justice.

It is to be noted that the revision petitioner/petitioner/appellant in the affidavit filed in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 has inter alia stated that the southern

half of the petition property belongs to the Devasom Board has been suppressed and that the southern boundaries of the suit property has been

wrongly mentioned as ''Road'' and that the property of the Devasom Board has been purposely omitted to merge the area of Devasom Board and

further that, the Devasom Board is collecting rent for the southern half from the revision petitioner and that therefore, Devasom Board ought to be

added as an additional appellant/respondent.

In the counter filed by the respondent/petitioner, it is inter alia stated that ''building portions comes within the patta land of this landlord/petitioner

in the main O.P and vacant area abutting on the south belongs to Devaswom Board and that the building in issue exclusively falls within the patta

land of the landlord and that the Devaswom is not necessary party and a similar application has been filed to implead Devaswom by a tenant, a

lessee of adjoining shop in R.C.O.P. No. 36 of 1992 which has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller, Nagercoil and the same has been

confirmed by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 1093 of 2007 holding that the Devaswom Board is unnecessary party and that the main eviction

proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 36 of 1992 is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and therefore, prays for the dismissal of the application.

It is to be borne in mind that the petition in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 in R.C.A. No. 16 of 2004 has been filed before the learned appellate authority

namely, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

At this stage, this Court recalls the decision in Aruppukottai Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. M. Periaswami and Anr. reported in 1974 TLNJ

247 at 248, wherein it is held that ''admittedly, there is no provision in the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act or in the Rules framed

under the said Act, for any of the provisions of the CPC being made applicable to actions and proceedings taken or instituted under Act and that

as early as in 1965, it has been held in (1965) 1 MLJ 287 that the Rent Controller is not a court and that the CPC is not applicable to proceedings

taken under the Act and that the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the Rules framed thereunder themselves make provision for

certain matters, such as service of summons, setting aside of ex-parte orders, proceedings by or against legal representatives etc., no part of the

CPC has been made applicable to the various proceedings that have to be taken in actions under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)

Act, such as impleading of parties, service of summons, setting aside the ex-parte orders, continuance of proceedings by the legal representatives

of a deceased petitioner or respondent etc. and it is therefore, obvious that Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC cannot also apply to any proceedings

under the Act.

Generally, there is an exclusion of the applicability of the provisions of the CPC and where it is either made applicable or even intended to

apply, provision is made to that effect as per the decision in Devarajan v. Muniratnam reported in 94 LW 435 at 437. The special procedure of

rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, provide for a procedure to be followed by the learned Rent

Controller and the learned appellate authority and they deal with certain aspects of the procedure to be followed and it is quite obvious that the

provisions of the CPC cannot be invoked dealing with the petition under the Act as per the decision in T.N. Krishnamoorthy Vs. Jagat Textiles, .

In view of the fact that the ingredients of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC are not applicable to any proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, this Court without going into the merits of the matter in issue between the parties, opines that the

application in I.A. No. 10 of 2008 filed by the revision petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC is not per se maintainable in law and

resultantly, the present civil revision petition fails.

In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed in the interest of justice leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Resultantly, the connected

Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.