AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—The view expressed by the Appellate Authority that the appeal filed by the respondent herein, without making a deposit as required by Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act is maintainable is erroneous. The appellate Authority has placed reliance in Ravi Ram Vs. Somasundaram, . He has overlooked that the matter has been considered in detail in several other judgments of this Court including S.K. Rajapandian v. A. Kesavan (1991) 2 L.W. 453. In that judgment, I have referred to the judgment in Ravi Ram Vs. Somasundaram, and distinguished the same. I have followed the judgment of a Division Bench in Kuppanha Chettiar v. Ramachandran AIR 1981 Mad 35. Unfortunately, the lower appellate Court has not taken note of any of those judgments. Hence, the order passed by the Appellate Authority holding that appeal is maintainable and that there should be an order of stay are unsustainable.
It is brought to my notice that already there is an order of stay of dispossession by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) 21487/95. In view of the said order of the Supreme Court, there is no danger of the respondent being evicted till the proceedings in the Supreme Court are disposed of.
In the circumstances, the order of the Appellate Authority in I.A. No. 322 of 1995 in R.C.A. No. 130 of 1995 is set aside. The said application is remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Appellate Authority may take up the application I.A. No. 322 of 1995 and the appeal R.C.A. No. 130 of 1995 together and dispose of both in accordance with the law laid down in the several decisions of this Court.
The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.