A. Narayanasamy, S. Kannan and S. Vijaya vs V. Murugesan and M. Jeyalakshmi

K. Gnanaprakasam, J.—Both the revision petitions, one against the order in I.A.No.41/2001 in R.C.O.P.No.9/2000 and the other against

I.A.No.42/2001 in R.C.O.P.No.10/2000 on the file of the Rent Controller, Sivakasi, have been filed by the petitioners in the Rent Control

proceedings.

The revision petitioners have taken out rent control proceedings against the respondents stating that the respondents are the tenants under the

petitioners and the said relationship is very much disputed by the respondents in both the rent control proceedings.

It is also stated that the respondents are not at all the tenants under the petitioners and there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant

between the petitioners and the respondents. It is further submitted that the respondent has already filed a suit in O.S.No.83/2001 before the Sub-

Court at Sivakasi for a declaration that the sale deed dated 19.11.97 in favour of A. Govindaraj was sham and nominal document and for other

ancillary relief. In view of the pendency of the said suit, the respondents had filed an application u/s 10 and 151 C.P.C. to stay all further

proceedings in the Rent Control petition and the said petitions came to be allowed by order dated 29.10.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners, who are the landlords in the rent control petition had preferred these revision petitions.

The eviction proceedings taken by the petitioners is under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rentrol Control) Act 1960 and it is a special

enactment. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that Section 10 C.P.C. has no application in the rent control proceedings. The revision

petitioners have raised two contentions to show that the order passed by the Rent Controller is incorrect, that is,(1) Section 10 C.P.C. is not

applicable to the rent control proceedings. (2) The suit filed by the respondent was subsequent to the proceedings taken out by the revision

petitioners.

As far as the first contention is concerned, we have to examine Section 10 C.P.C. which reads as follows:

No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit

between same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the

same or any other court of India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed or any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by

Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.

The primary requisite for the application of Section 10 C.P.C is that the proceedings instituted earlier and the proceedings instituted subsequently

must be suits. In this case, the petitioners have filed the petition under Rent Control Act and the suit filed by the respondent is before the Civil

Court and therefore, it is contended that the Rent Control proceedings is not a suit, which would fall within the definition of Section 10 C.P.C.

The revision petitioners have also drawn my attention to the case of Disaviraj Vs. M.R. Palaniswami D.R.C.R. 1989 Page 178 wherein the

decision reported in Subbaramayya V. B.N. Swami was relied upon wherein it was held that ""On a plain reading of the section, is manifest that

S.10 is attracted only when the previously instituted proceedings and the subsequently instituted proceedings are suits. If one is suit and the other

not, S.10 C.P.C. is not attracted. Inherent powers cannot be invoked in a case where a particular procedure have been laid down to meet a

particular contingency. Under S. 10(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, if the tenants deny the title of the

landlord or claim permanent tenancy, then the Rent Controller has to determine the bonafides of that plea, raised by the tenants"".(It is needless to

say that corresponding to the above referred to provisions in the Andhra Act, there is a provision in the corresponding Tamil Nadu Act also).

By observing so, it was held that Section 10 C.P.C. is not applicable to the Rent Control proceedings.

The revision petitioners also relied upon the case of Mrs. Sakunthala and Others Vs. Mrs. A. Devi, , wherein the learned Judge after relying

upon catina of cases has held that CPC is not applicable to the rent control proceedings. It is a well established law that the Rent Court is not a

civil court and the C.P.C. is not applicable to the Rent Court.

In Seethalakshmi Ammal V. Rajammal 1965 1 M.L.J. 287 it was held that the Rent Controller is not functioning as a Civil Court and the CPC

as such has not been applied to the Controller. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that the CPC as such will not apply to the proceedings

before the authorities constituted under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The provisions of the CPC will not apply, except to

the extent provided by the Act itself.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to point out that Section 10 C.P.C. is one of the Sections provided under the Act which

is made applicable and in the absence of the same, it cannot be contended that Section 10 C.P.C is applicable to the Rent Control proceedings

and therefore there is anerror in the orders passed by the Rent Controller and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside.

In so far as the second contention is concerned, admittedly the Rent Control proceedings are earlier in point of time and the suit was filed only

subsequently and as per Section 10 C.P.C, the subsequent suit alone has got to be stayed and not the suit instituted earlier in point of time. In the

said view of the matter also, the contentions raised by the respondents cannot be countenanced.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders passed by the Rent Controller are set aside. No costs. Consequently,

C.M.P.Nos.6045 and 6046 of 2002 are closed.