Pachai Ammal @ Paychaiammal vs K. Padmanabhan

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—The respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 132 of 2008 is the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court in R.C.A. No.

94 of 2012 and also the petitioner before this Court in all these civil revision petitions. The said R.C.O.P. was filed against the petitioner herein

seeking for his eviction by claiming the petitioner as the tenant. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioner that he is not the tenant in

respect of the petition mentioned property. The petitioner also raised ground with regard to the maintainability of the R.C.O.P. in view of his

specific stand that he is not the tenant under the respondent or in respect of the petition mentioned property. During the pendency of the above

appeal, the landlord viz., the respondent herein filed M.P. No. 140 of 2012 u/s 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,

seeking for a direction to the petitioner herein to deposit the arrears of rent from June 2010 to January 2012.

The petitioner herein also filed M.P. No. 238 of 2012 in R.C.A. No. 94 of 2012 to decide the issue as to whether there exists any relationship

of landlord and tenant between the appellant and the respondent, as preliminary issue.

The petitioner also filed another application in M.P. No. 275 of 2012 in R.C.A. No. 94 of 2012, seeking for permission to adduce additional

evidence and to file additional documents.

The court below disposed of all the three applications by a separate order but on the same date. In 11(4) application filed by the landlord, the

court has directed the petitioner herein to deposit rental arrears for 27 months from June 2010 till August 2012 at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-

amounting to Rs. 40,500/- to the credit of R.C.A. No. 94 of 2012 before 08.10.2012. The court below has found that the petitioner herein did

not deny the arrears but he contested the matter by stating that the property is his own property. The court below has also found that the petitioner

paid some amount as deposit before the learned Rent Controller. Taking note of these facts, the Appellate Authority has directed the deposit of

rental arrears to the credit of R.C.A. as it would not prejudice the interest of both parties.

I find that the order passed by the court below in directing the petitioner only to deposit the rental arrears before the court is in no way prejudice

the interest of the petitioner since such deposit will take care of interest of both parties so that at the time of final disposal, the party who succeeds

in the appeal can take the benefit of the deposit in their favour. In otherwords, if the petitioner succeeds in the appeal, he can take back the money

or if the respondent succeeds, he will take the money deposited in the court. Therefore, mere depositing will not prejudice the interest of the

petitioner. Accordingly, I find that the order passed by the court below in M.P. No. 140 of 2012 does not warrant any interference.

In so far as the other application filed by the petitioner in M.P. No. 275 of 2012, seeking for adducing additional evidence is concerned, the

court below has found that such application has to be taken up along with the main R.C.A. and cannot be decided independently. From the order

passed by the court below, it could be seen that the court has not rejected the said application and only observed that the said application cannot

be taken up independently and can be taken up along with the appeal. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioner cannot said to be

prejudiced by the said order as his application is not rejected by the court below. Certainly, if the court below finds that there are merits in the

application at the time of hearing the appeal, it can pass orders on the same accordingly. Therefore, when the application itself is to be taken up

along with the appeal, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the court below. Consequently, I find no grounds to interfere with the

order.

While coming to the other application filed by the petitioner in M.P. No. 238 of 2012, which was filed to decide the maintainability issue as

preliminary issue, the court below has observed that the petitioner as the appellant has raised the ground of maintainability in the appeal and for the

very same reason, the petitioner had filed the said appeal and that there is no need to decide that issue as preliminary issue as the main R.C.A. itself

is ripe for disposal. From the reading of the order of the court below, it could be seen that the court has not rejected the contention of the

petitioner and on the other hand, it was only observed that the said issue can be taken up at the time of main disposal of R.C.A. especially, when

the appeal itself is ripe for disposal. I find that the order passed does not warrant any interference by this Court since the very appeal itself is ripe

for disposal as early as on 10.09.2012. Accordingly, I find no merits in the civil revision petition challenging the order made in M.P. No. 238 of

2012 also.

Consequently, all the three civil revision petitions are dismissed and the appeal in R.C.A. No. 94 of 2012 is directed to be taken up for final

disposal and the lower court is directed to dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 60 days from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

seeks permission of this court to raise additional grounds in the appeal with regard to the maintainability. If the petitioner had not taken the ground

already, it is open to him to raise additional grounds before the lower court.