A. Krishnamurthy vs P. Arjunan

The tenant in the rent control proceeding has come forward to file the above civil revision petition as against the fair and decretal order dated

27.3.2000 made in M.P.No.585 of 1999 in R.C.A.No.588 of 1999 by the Court of VIII Small Causes, Chennai.

Today, when the above matter is taken up for consideration, in the presence of the learned counsel for both in consideration of the pleadings of

parties and having regard to the materials placed on record, what comes to be known is that the main R.C.O.P. had been filed by the landlord for

eviction of the tenant and the same had been heard and decided ultimately in favour of the landlord/petitioner thereby ordering the eviction of the

tenant, and in turn, it is the tenant who had preferred R.C.A.No.588 of 99 testifying the validity of the order passed by the Rent Controller and

while filing the above R.C.A.., the tenant had also filed the petition in M.P.No.585 of 1999 for an order of stay of operation of the fair and

decretal order passed by the Rent Controller in the R.C.O.P. Since this petition got dismissed by the appellate authority, the tenant has come

forward to institute the above civil revision petition.

The simple question that needs to be answered here is whether the appellate court, while entertaining an appeal, can dismiss the petition for stay

of operation of the fair and decretal order passed by the Rent Controller, especially in the event that an appeal is being preferred by the tenant who

is admittedly in possession of the premises. Needless to point out that it is a valuable tenancy right and possession in the capacity as tenant that is

going to be decided by the appellate authority and the moment the tenant is exposed against the order of the lower authority for eviction, there is

no point in the appellate authority entertaining the appeal and hearing it at a later point of time having indirectly allowed the execution of the order

of the lower authority consequently evicting the tenant from out of the premises, the very purpose of the entertaining the appeal on file for disposal

is defeated. Hence especially in cases of such nature, the stay order goes along with the appeal. If at all the matter is along pending one and the

landlord, inspite of having succeeded before the lower forums, is struggling to get the relief just on account of the pendency of the appeal, it is open

for the landlord to seek for an early disposal of the appeal itself and refusing to grant the stay in favour of the tenant is definitely not the answer in

the expectations of law.

For all the above discussions held, it comes to be known that the appellate authority has failed to take a decision that he is expected to take in

the circumstances of the case and in all probabilities. The appellate authority should have allowed the petition for stay, but instead, it is pathetic to

state that for some reason or other, the appellate authority had dismissed the petition for stay, which can never be arrived at under such

circumstances so far as the facts and circumstances of this case are concerned.

In result, the above civil revision petition succeeds and the same is allowed. No costs. The fair and decretal order dated 27.3.2000 made in

M.P.No.585 of 1999 in R.C.A. No.588 of 1999 by the appellate authority and VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is hereby set aside.

There shall be an order of stay of the operation of the fair and decretal order dated 28.6.1999 made in R.C.O.P.No.2516 of 1995 on the file of

the Rent Controller and XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai pending disposal of the appeal.

Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.7980 and 8622 of 2000 are closed.