Suchitra Sebastian and Thomas Victor Vs. Michael Arul - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....the scheme of the act and to implement the purpose behind the act. the fact that the rule making authority has prescribed procedure in exercise of the powers under section 67 for making an application to the director does not mean that the suo motu power which is explicit in section 5(2) of the act is in any way curtailed or taken away. therefore, the contention of the respondent that making an application is sine qua non for invoking the power under section 5(2) of the act is not tenable. -- t.n. estates (abolition & conversion into ryotwari) act, 1948. sections 5(2) & 67; suo motu revisional powers held, on a bare reading of the provisions of section 5(2) of the act, it is clear that the power conferred on the director by section 5(2) to cancel or revise any of the orders, acts..........by the landlord under section 11(4) of the act for eviction of these respondents. the learned rent controller heard both sides and allowed m.p. no. 188 of 2008 on 10.06.2009 directing these petitioners to pay rental arrears of rs. 10,50,000/- being the arrears of rent from november 1990 to may 2009 to the petitioners on or before 10.07.2009 failing which all further proceedings in the main rcop will be stopped and eviction be ordered. 2. aggrieved against the said order, the tenant has preferred appeal in rca no. 236 of 2009 against the said order and the appellate authority after hearing both sides on 11.09.2009 disposed of the said appeal directing the learned rent controller to dispose of m.p. no. 188 of 2008 in rcop no. 2175 of 2009 in accordance with law at the earliest. it is.....

Judgment:
ORDER

S. Palanivelu, J.

1. The petitioners are tenants under the respondent. The respondent filed RCOP No. 2175 of 2007 on the file of the X Asst. Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai for eviction on the ground of wilful default. The Rent Controller after enquiry allowed the application filed by the landlord under Section 11(4) of the Act for eviction of these respondents. The learned Rent Controller heard both sides and allowed M.P. No. 188 of 2008 on 10.06.2009 directing these petitioners to pay rental arrears of Rs. 10,50,000/- being the arrears of rent from November 1990 to May 2009 to the petitioners on or before 10.07.2009 failing which all further proceedings in the main RCOP will be stopped and eviction be ordered.

2. Aggrieved against the said order, the tenant has preferred appeal in RCA No. 236 of 2009 against the said order and the appellate authority after hearing both sides on 11.09.2009 disposed of the said appeal directing the learned rent controller to dispose of M.P. No. 188 of 2008 in RCOP No. 2175 of 2009 in accordance with law at the earliest. It is stated in the appellate court judgment that the rent controller has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 11(3) of the Act and it would be appropriate to direct the learned rent controller to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

3. It is stated by Mr. Yashod Vardhan, Senior Counsel for the respondent that the documents have not been properly appreciated by the learned rent controller. Whatever may be the merits of the matter, this Court has to see whether the Rent Control Appellate Authority has got power to remand the matter in the circusmtances available.

4. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 1991 1 MLJ (R. Mani v. Shanmugham and Ors.) wherein this Court has held that the appellate authority has only directed the Rent Controller to dispose of the application in accordance with law and strictly speaking, it is not a case of remand. This Court has taken a consistent view that the appellate authority in the rent control matters has no powers to remand the matter and it has to dispose of the appeal before it with the materials available before it.

5. This Court on earlier occasions in the decision reported in : 1973 2 MLJ 55 [C. Kuttappa Nair and Anr. v. S.S.A. Shahul Hameed and Ors.] and : 2002 1 LLJ 1105 Mad [Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. v. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act] has decided that the appellate authority has no power to remand a matter and the only power given to him by the statute is to 'make further enquiry either personally or through the Controller' if need be, and is bound to decide the various issues in the appeal himself. The case in R. Mani v. Shanmugham and Ors. (supra) is distinguishable for the reason that in the said case, the petition for setting aside the ex parte order was filed and the Rent Controller, without discussing the merits of the application, passed an order, as 'the petitioner is closed', since the tenants have vacated the petitioner's premises. No adjudication was made in the said petition for setting aside the ex parte eviction order. But in the case in hand, there has been adjudication of matter on merits with reference to the pleadings and the documents produced by the Rent Controller and the only finding by the appellate authority is that no oral evidence has been recorded.

6. In view of this Court, adequate materials are available before the Appellate Authority to decide the matter and there is no need to remand back the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh disposal. In such view of this matter, the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority suffers from infirmity and the same is set aside.

7. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed directing the Rent Control Appellate Authority to decide the matter himself after affording ample opportunities to both parties in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.