S. Balakrishnan vs A. Rathinam

V. Ratnam, J.—This civil revision petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questions the correctness of the order of

the Rent Controller (District Munsif) Thiruthuraipoondi dismissing an application filed by the petitioner herein in E A. No. 123 of 1985 in E.P. No.

46 of 1985 in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of 1984, u/s 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as

the Act), and Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Act.

According to the case of the petitioner, an ex parte order of eviction had been passed against him on 1.2.1985 and an application to set aside

that order had been filed on 4.2.1985 under Rule 12(3) of the Rules in I A. No. 4 of 1985. Notice of that application was taken by the respondent

herein and time for filing a counter was requested on 12.2.1985 and subsequently, time was extended for filing counter till 14.6.1985. Meanwhile,

on 24.4.1985, the respondent is stated to have filed E.P. No. 46 of 1985 for executing the order of eviction obtained in R.C.O.P. No. 11 of

1984, and pursuant to the order for delivery, taken delivery on 25.4.1985, resulting in the dispossession of the petitioner. Thereupon on 2.5.1985,

the petitioner filed E A. No. 123 of 1985 in E.P. No. 46 of 1985 praying for re-delivery i.e., restitution to him of the property from which he was

dispossessed. The Rent Controller dismissed this application holding that the order of eviction passed against the petitioner cannot be considered

to be an ex parte order and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of restitution. It is the correctness of this order that is questioned by

the petitioner.

A preliminary objection is raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent regarding the maintainability of the civil revision petition. Learned

Counsel submitted that the application filed by the petitioner praying for re-delivery of the property would be in the nature of an application for

restitution u/s 144, C.P.C. and the dismissal of such an application would not fall u/s 18(1) of the Act, and, therefore, there is no bar to the

preferring of an appeal u/s 23 of the Act and the Civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is incompetent. Reliance was

also placed by the learned Counsel on the decision reported in Hidayathullah v. Appellate Authority Rent Controller etc. 98 L.W. 328 : AIR 1986

Mad.70.

In this case, there is no dispute that the relief prayed for by the petitioner is one of re-delivery of the property from which he was dispossessed

pursuant to the order of eviction obtained by the respondent against the petitioner. Though in the application for redelivery, the petitioner has

referred to Section 18(1) of the Act, and Rule 12 of the Rules framed under the Act, in effect and substance, the application is one for restoring the

petitioner to possession of the property from which he was dispossessed and in that sense it would really be in the nature of an application for

restitution. In such a situation, the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Act would be inapplicable, as under that section, every order made under

Sections 10,14,15, 16 and 17 and every order passed on appeal u/s 23 or on revision u/s 25, shall be executed by the Controller, as if such order

is an order of a Civil Court and for this purpose, the Controller shall have all the powers of a Civil Court. u/s 18(2) of the Act, an order passed in

execution u/s 18(1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision. In order, therefore, to attract the bar enacted u/s 18(2) of the Act, the order

passed by the Rent Controller in the course of the execution must be in relation to orders under Sections 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 or the appellate

order u/s 23 or revisional order u/s 25 of the Act, and for giving effect to those orders, the Rent Controller is clothed with all the powers of a Civil

Court and an order on the application of the kind filed by the petitioner in this case does not fall u/s 18(1) of the Act, and necessarily, therefore the

bar u/s 18(2) of the Act also does not stand attracted. The result would be that the order hi this case would fall under the category of an order

passed by the Rent Controller occurring in Section 23(1)(b) of the Act, and would, therefore, be appealable. The decision in Hidayathullah Vs.

Appellate Authority (Rent Controller) III Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras and Others, , relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent

squarely supports this view. In that case, the tenant who was dispossessed pursuant to an order of eviction, filed an application u/s 144 C.P.C. for

re-delivery to him of the property and despite opposition by the landlord, that application was ordered by the Rent Controller. An appeal against

that order was preferred by the landlord to the appellate authority. But the appellate authority, without considering the merits, proceeded to reject

the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. That order was questioned before this Court and it was laid down, referring to

Fathima Automobiles v. P.K.P. Nair and Ors. 1984 T.L.N.J.368, that an order allowing an application for restitution would not fall within Section

18(1) of the Act, and therefore, the rejection of the appeal by the appellate authority on the ground that the bar enacted u/s 18(2) of the Act would

be attracted was unsustainable and the appellate authority was directed to entertain the appeal and dispose it of on merits. The principle of this

decision would squarely apply to this case as the petitioner had prayed only for the relief of re-delivery of possession by way of restitution.

Consequently, the preliminary objection is upheld and the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.