P MEENAKSHIAMMAL Vs. G MURALIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the common judgment and decree dated 11. 3. 2003 respectively rendered in r. C. A. Nos. 329 and 335 of 2001 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII small Causes Judge), Chennai thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 18. 4. 2001 respectively made in C. M. P. No. 60 of 1999 and M. P. No. 800 of 2000 in R. E. P. No. 410 of 1998 in R. C. O. P. No. 88 of 1998 by the Court of Rent Controller (XVI Small Causes Judge), Chennai.

(2.) TRACING the history of the above Civil Revisions having come to be filed, what comes to be known is that the petitioner herein is the landlady who filed R. C. O. P. No. 88 of 1998 for eviction of the respondent therein for wilful default on the ground that originally one Mr. Kanniappan was the tenant of the tenanted premises and he was carrying on the business of blacksmith; that on his death, his wife claiming to be associated with the business of her husband asserted right to continue in occupation of the tenanted premises and offered to pay rent; that the petitioner herein refused to receive the rent and to recognize her position as tenant upon which she filed R. C. O. P. No. 982 of 1992 for deposit of rents; that the said R. C. O. P. was allowed by an order dated 15. 3. 1994 wherein the tenant was directed to deposit the rent into court directly; that the tenant defaulted in the payment of rents for the months of July and August 1996 and filed M. P. No. 648 of 1996 for condoning the delay in depositing the rent and offered to deposit the rent; that the said miscellaneous petition was dismissed on 14. 7. 1997.

(3.) THEREFORE, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has got every reason to order setting aside the exparte orders and this Court is not able to find any error apparent on the face of the common judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and therefore this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well considered and merited decision rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and both the above Civil Revision petitions are liable only to be set aside and hence the following order: In result, (i) both the above Civil revision Petitions do not merit acceptance and they become liable only to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. (ii) The common judgment and decrees dated 11. 3. 2003 respectively rendered in R. C. A. Nos. 329 and 335 of 2001 by the Rent Control appellate Authority (VII Small Causes Judge), Chennai thereby reversing the fair and decretal orders dated 18. 4. 2001 respectively made in C. M. P. No. 60 of 1999 and M. P. No. 800 of 2000 in R. E. P. No. 410 of 1998 in R. C. O. P. No. 88 of 1998 by the Rent Controller (XVI Small Causes Judge), Chennai is hereby confirmed. (iii) The Rent Controller is directed to comply with the direction issued by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in disposing of the r. C. O. P. on merits and in accordance with law at the earliest. However, in the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, C. M. P. Nos. 5605 and 5606 of 2004 are also dismissed. .