Swarna Constructions vs P.L. Subramaniam

R. Mala, J.—The revision petitioner herein has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 16.04.2014 made in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee.

The revision petitioner herein is a tenant and the respondent herein is a landlord. The landlord/respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No.33 of 2009, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the file of the District Munsif cum Rent Controller at Poonamallee, for fixation of fair rent, wherein, the learned trial Judge fixed the fair rent at Rs.65225/- p.m., against which, the revision petitioner herein preferred R.C.A.No.18 of 2012 and the same is pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee). During the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.18 of 2012, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee), to mark the demand card issued by the Revenue Department, Corporation of Madras and Caveat application sent by the respondent filed in this Court as additional evidence. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee), after considering the objection raised by the respondent herein, has dismissed the application, against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that to prove the market value of the property, the document sought to be filed by the revision petitioner is necessary to decide the fair rent and hence, an opportunity must be given to the revision petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Resisting the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the revision petitioner herein wants to mark the property tax demand notice and also the caveat petition served on him, which are not necessary, because, the property tax demand notice has already been marked before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller has held that the said demand notice is a fabricated document. To circumvent the situation, the revision petitioner herein filed the application for reception of additional document. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that the revision petitioner herein ought to have filed the additional document along with R.C.A. and not at this stage. Therefore, the trial Court has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and dismissed the application. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

I have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the typed set of papers.

The respondent herein as landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.33 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif cum Rent Controller, Poonamallee, for fixation of fair rent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. After the examination of witnesses, the trial Court fixed the monthly fair rent of Rs.65,225/-, against which, the revision petitioner herein filed an appeal, which was taken on file as R.C.A.No.18 of 2012. During the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner herein filed an application for reception of additional documents, such as, the Property Tax demand notice and the caveat petition filed by the respondent.

Since the petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, was filed only for fixation of fair rent, the property tax demand notice will not serve for that purpose.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the property tax demand notice, which is sought to be marked, has already been filed before the Rent Controller, where the Rent Controller has held that the property tax demand notice is a fabricated document. In such circumstances, I am of the view that in order to delay the disposal of R.C.A. the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed, which shows the mala fide intention of the petitioner and the caveat petition filed by the respondent herein has nothing to do with the fixation of fair rent. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.