M. Varadarajulu Chetti vs C. Selvaraj

Motilal B. Naik, J.—The questions raised in the civil revision petition, though look very peculiar, in the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the order impugned in the civil revision petition has to be set aside and remand the matter back to the Rent Controller, that is, the original authority for deciding R.C.C.No. 16/87 from the stage of the respondent adducing evidence.

It is contended by Sri P.S. Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said R.C.C.16/87 was filed by the landlord-petitioner herein on two counts, viz., wilful default and acts of waste. The evidence on behalf of the petitioner-landlord was adduced and the respondent-tenant for reasons unknown failed to adduce evidence and therefore on 7-9-89 he was set ex parte. Consequently, decree was passed in favour of the landlord-petitioner directing eviction of the respondent-tenant. As against setting ex parte on 7-9-89, GM.A. No. 9/89 was filed by the respondent-tenant before the lower appellate Court. An I.A.95/89 was filed by the respondent-tenant to set aside the ex parte order passed by the learned Rent Controller and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, C.M.A.10/89 was filed by the respondent-tenant.

In C.M.A.9/89, it is contended that the lower appellate Court while setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 7-9-89 ought to have remitted back the matter to the original forum, that is, the Rent Controller and ought to have directed the parties to lead evidence from where it had stopped. Instead, the lower appellate Court has grossly decided the matter on merits and allowed the appeal, which is contrary to norms. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to go into merits and demerits of the case.

It is contended by Sri Noushad Ali the learned counsel for the respondent that the lower appellate Court is competent enough to pass orders on merits without even having advantage of the evidence of the tenant. I am afraid, this view cannot be accepted. If this view is accepted, this Court will be constrained to decide the matter on merits.

After hearing both sides, I am of the view to set aside the order in CM.A. No. 9/89 dated 8-8-1990 and remit the matter back to the Rent Controller by restoring R.C.C. No. 16/87 with further direction to allow the parties to lead evidence from the stage where it has been left and pass orders on merits. The entire exercise of passing of orders on merits should be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.