Full Judgment
(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 115 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.04.2015, made in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi.)
This memorandum of Civil Revision Petition has been filed, against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.04.2015, made in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi.
2. The petitioner is the landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2012, on the file of the Rent Control Tribunal/Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi, for eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default. After contesting, the said RCOP was allowed on 09.12.2013, granting two months time for the respondent to vacate the petition property. Against the said order of eviction, the respondent filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Thoothukudi. In R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2012, the respondent also filed I.A.No.8 of 2014 for injunction, restraining the petitioner from executing the order passed in the said RCOP. The petitioner filed counter and opposed the same. The learned Judge considering, the facts and materials on record, granted injunction on 24.04.2015, with regard to the execution of the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2012. Against that order, present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioner appeared in person and contended that the learned Appellate Judge failed to see that the respondent is in arrears of rent, even after filing of RCOP by the petitioner, as well as the Rent Control Appeal filed by the respondent. The learned Judge ought to have imposed condition, by taking into consideration of arrears of rent, while granting discretionary order. The petitioner, even though the respondent in the appeal, argued the main case in the appeal, on 10.07.2014. But, the respondent being the appellant, took various adjournments on number of occasions, viz., 17.7.2014, 22.7.2014, 25.7.2014, 21.8.2014, 15.9.2014, 22.9.2014, 7.10.2014, 13.10.2014, 5.11.2014, 13.11.2014, 15.12.2014, 2.2.2015 and 6.4.2015, in the main case. The Rent Control Appellate Authority having taken note of this fact, ought to have dismissed the application filed by the respondent.
4. Heard Mr.Durai Arasan, party-in-person and perused the materials available on record. Though notice was served on the respondent and his name is also printed in the cause list, there is no representation either in person or through his counsel.
5. From the records, it is seen that the petitioner has filed R.C.O.P.No.19 of 2012 on the file of the Rent Control Tribunal/Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi for eviction of the respondent on the ground of wilful default and obtained order. Even after filing the RCOP and RCA, the respondent has not paid rent regularly. Further he is not interesting in arguing the appeal and for disposal of the appeal on merits. The learned Judge having noted that the respondent has taken number of adjournments and failed to argue the RCA on merits, erred in granting interim order. In the circumstances, the order of the learned Principal District Munsif/Rent Control Tribunal, dated 24.04.2015, made in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.1 of 2015 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, hereby is set aside.
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, the learned Sub Judge, Thoothukudi, is directed to dispose of R.C.A.No.1 of 2015, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than 31st day of August, 2016. No Costs.