AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Venugopal, J.—The revision petitioner/proposed 4th respondent in the execution petition has filed this civil revision petition as against the
fair and decretal order dated 30.10.2008 made in RCA. No. 409 of 2007 in M.P. No. 273 of 2006 in E.P. No. 503 of 2005 in RCOP No. 2009
of 1999 on the file of learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
The learned Appellate Authority viz., VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, while passing Judgment in RCA. No. 409 of 2007 has, inter
alia, come to the resultant conclusion that the rent control appeal is not maintainable and consequently dismissed the same as not maintainable in
law.
Being dissatisfied with the said Judgment and decree so passed in RCA. No. 409 of 2007, the revision petitioner/proposed 4th respondent has
preferred this revision petition before this Court.
It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner has filed RCA. No. 409 of 2007 before the learned Appellate Authority viz., VII Judge, Court of
Small Causes, Chennai as against the order dated 2.7.20007 passed in M.P. No. 273 of 2006 in E.P. No. 503 of 2005 in RCOP No. 2009 of
1999 on the file of learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
It is to be noted that M.P. No. 273 of 2006 has been filed by the revision petitioner before the learned Rent Controller under Order 1 Rule
10(2) of CPC praying to implead him as 4th respondent in E.P. No. 503 of 2005. In this connection, this Court pertinently points out that
''ingredients of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC are not applicable to the Rent Control Proceedings. Be that as it may, in the present case on hand,
M.P. No. 273 of 2006 has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground that when the order passed in the Rent Control Original
Petition is in force and further when the learned Rent Controller is in a position to execute the said order in an execution proceedings, the request
of the petitioner to implead him as 4th respondent in the execution proceedings is not to be accepted and resultantly dismissed the petition.
The issue of applicability of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC has not been adverted to by the learned Rent Controller, while dismissing M.P. No.
273 of 2006. Any way, since the applicability of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is an abstract issue of law and since it is a legal question, there is no
embargo in law for this Court to go into this aspect and to answer the point and accordingly on going through the entire gamut of the Rent Control
Act, this Court is of the considered view that Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is not at all applicable to the Rent Control Proceedings and the point is
answered against the revision petitioner/proposed 4th respondent in the execution petition.
Apart from the above, the core question to be decided in this revision petition is the second limb of argument on maintainability of filing of RCA
No. 409 of 2007 as against the order passed in M.P. No. 273 of 2006. In law, as against the order dated 2.7.2007 passed in M.P. No. 273 of
2006 only a revision lies before this Court unfortunately, the revision petitioner has not resorted to such a procedure. Instead, he has taken
recourse by way of filing of an appeal as against the order passed in M.P. No. 273 of 2006 and accordingly projected R.C.A. No. 409 of 2007.
Ultimately, the first appellate authority has held that R.C.A. No. 409 of 2007 is not maintainable.
When M.P. No. 273 of 2006 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC itself is not prima facie maintainable before the Rent Controller even at the
stage of execution proceedings, then the filing of an appeal RCA 409 of 2007 before the first appellate authority is also not maintainable and in this
factual scenario as an aggrieved person, the petitioner cannot maintain the revision before this Court and resultantly, the civil revision petition is
dismissed.
In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2009 is
also dismissed.