A. Mohammed Ibrahim vs R. Pandiselvi

V.M. Velumani, J.—This civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.02.2014, passed in unnumbered R.C.A.A. No. 3940/05.02.2014, preferred against the order passed in I.A. No. 159 of 2013 in R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2007 on the file of Additional Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai, dated 12.11.2013.

The revision petitioner herein is the tenant, whereas the respondents 1 to 3 are the landlords and the fourth respondent is the proposed fourth respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2007 on the file of Additional Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai. The respondents 1 to 3 filed R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2007 under Section 10(2)(1) and 14(i)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], on the ground of wilful default and demolition and reconstruction. The petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 159 of 2013 in R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2007, for impleading the fourth respondent herein as fourth respondent in the R.C.O.P. The said application was dismissed on 12.11.2013. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 23(1)(b) of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The said unnumbered R.C.A. was rejected holding that only civil revision petition is lies against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, dismissing I.A. No. 159 of 2013 for impleading the fourth respondent. Against the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the appeal lies before the Rent Control Appellate Authority against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. He referred to Section 23(1)(b) of the Act, wherein it has been held that any person aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Rent Controller, may within 15 days from the date of receipt of such order, prefer an appeal in writing to the appellate authority having jurisdiction. He relied on the Judgment reported in S.M. Chandrasekaran Vs. S.S. Jayamani, S.S. Sridharan, S.S. Kannan and M.M. Vanisri, . In the said Judgment, it was held that the learned Rent Controller has power of the civil Court and therefore, any order passed by the learned Rent Controller is appealable except the orders, which are passed under Section 18 of the Act.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 argued that all the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller are not appealable, only the orders finally decides the issue in question are appealable. To substantiate his case, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 relied on the Judgment reported in 2008(1) MLJ 732 [M. Thangamani Vs. P. Dharmaraj and Others], wherein in paragraph No. 17, it has been held as follows:-

"17. In the instant case, as stated in many places, the present petition has been filed only under Order 1 Rule 10(ii) of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to implead the revision petitioner as the second respondent in Rent Control Original Petition No. 1 of 2005. The Court below has dismissed the same mainly on the ground that the same is not maintainable in Rent Control Proceedings. It has already been held that the present petition is legally maintainable in Rent Control Proceedings in view of the consistent decisions of this Court. Of course, it is true that the Court below has dismissed the present petition. The dismissal order passed by the Court below has not decided the rights of the parties and further, the impugned order has not reached its finality with regard to the dispute between the parties. Therefore, it is quite clear that if any order is passed in Rent Control Proceedings without touching the rights of the parties or if the concerned order has not become final and against that order Civil Revision Petition is legally maintainable and there is no need on the part of the affected party to prefer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. In view of the foregoing discussion of both the factual and legal premise, it is needless to say that the decision in S.M. Chandrasekaran Vs. S.S. Jayamani and Others (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent is totally misconceived and the same cannot be given weight to."

I have heard Mr. D. Srinivasaraghavan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. D. Nallathambi, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the materials available on record.

The Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reported in S.M. Chandrasekaran Vs. S.S. Jayamani, S.S. Sridharan, S.S. Kannan and M.M. Vanisri, , is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, the orders were passed in the application to condone the delay. This Court in the circumstances of the case held that the order finally decided the issue involved in the R.C.O.P. itself and therefore, held that only appeal lies and dismissed the civil revision petition is not maintainable.

In the Judgment reported in 2008(1) MLJ 732 [M. Thangamani Vs. P. Dharmaraj and Others], relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, it has been specifically held that no appeal lies against the order in the application to implead a party as a second respondent, is not appealable and only revision is maintainable. It is pertinent to refer the Judgment reported in 1988(2) LW 52 [Sakthivel Vs. R.S. Govindan and another], wherein this Court held that only revision lies against the order passed in respect of impleading a party as a party to the R.C.O.P. In the said Judgment, in paragraph No. 6, it has been held as follows:-

"6...... The filing of an application to bring on record the legal representative of a deceased party is only to assist the further prosecution of the proceedings and to regulate the procedure and does not in any manner affect any right or liability. In Lakshmiammal and another Vs. V.K. Sivasubramaniam . I had occasion to consider the identical question as well as the effect of an order either bringing or declining to bring on record a legal representative in a proceeding under the Act and it has been laid down that the order passed is merely procedural assisting the continuation of the proceedings without in any manner affecting the rights of parties and such an order not affecting the rights of parties would not be appealable. That principle would be applicable to this case, also, and, therefore, the appeal preferred by the first respondent before the Appellate Authority was not maintainable as well."

Therefore, dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner to implead the fourth respondent herein as fourth respondent in the R.C.O.P. is not appealable. The learned Appellate Authority has rightly rejected the unnumbered R.C.A.

In view of the well settled judicial pronouncements, I hold that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order, dated 24.02.2014, passed in unnumbered R.C.A.A. No. 3940/05.02.2014, by the learned Additional Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai. Hence, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The learned Additional Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif Court), Madurai, is directed to dispose R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2007 as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than in the third week of December 2014.