M.R. Junaitha Begum vs India Tourism Development Corporation Limited

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—The landlady in the Rent Control Proceedings is the petitioner. She has filed R.C.O.P.No. 585 of 2013 on the file of XV Court of Small Causes under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 against the respondent herein for fixation of fair rent. She has also filed R.C.O.P.No. 2172 of 2013 against the very same respondent seeking for eviction on the ground of willful default. The said R.C.O.P was filed before the XII Court of Small Causes, Chennai. Apart from the above two R.C.O.Ps, the petitioner also filed R.C.O.P.No. 2440 of 2013 on the file of XIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai against the respondent herein and another person seeking for eviction on the ground of sub-letting.

The respondent /tenant filed Tr.O.P.No. 27 of 2014 before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai seeking for transfer of all the above three matters to be tried along in any one of the Courts together. The learned Chief Judge of Small Causes Court allowed the Transfer O.P in part and thereby transferred R.C.O.P.No. 585 of 2013 and R.C.O.P.No. 2172 of 2013 to the file of XIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai for joint trial with each other. However, in respect of R.C.O.P.No. 2440 of 2013, Transfer O.P is dismissed since the respondent herein, as the petitioner in above transfer O.P, has not impleaded the sub-tenant as party respondent therein. Aggrieved against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the landlady by contending that the issue involved in the Rent Control proceedings seeking for fixation of fair rent is totally different from the issue involved in respect of eviction petitions filed against the tenant and therefore, there is no necessity for joint trial.

No doubt the issue involved in both the cases are different. But at the same time, the fact remains that the parties and the premises are one and the same in both the proceedings and therefore, for the convenience of the parties, the petition was transferred, that too, to the Court where the other eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No. 2440 of 2013 is pending. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot have any grievance and on the other hand, the conduct of trial of all the three matters by the same Court would be in the interest of all the parties. Hence, I find no grounds to interfere with the said order.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.