S. Mohammed vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

S. Natarajan, J.—In a desperate attempt to resist the execution levied against him by the 3rd respondent (landlord) to evict him, the

tenant/petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for the issue of writ of declaration in order to nullify S. 18(2) of the Tamil Nadir

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S. 18(2) lays down that an order passed in execution

under sub-sec. (1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision. According to the petitioner, sub-sec. (1) of S. 18 constitutes the Rent Controller

a Civil Court and therefore, sub-sec. (2) is ultra virus as it disentitles an affected party to file an appeal or revision against an order in execution

made under sub-sec. (1).

Mohan, J. has already upheld the validity of sub-sec. (2) of S. 18 of the Act in Purushothama, Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu (W. P. No. 5819

of 1979 judgment dated 6-2-1980) wherein the learned Judge has held as follows : -

Under S. 18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, an order of eviction is deemed as an order of Civil Court only for the

limited purpose of execution. That does not mean that the further remedy available under the Civil P.C., namely, appeal and revision should be

provided for. There is no discrimination whatever, when the provisions of a special statute, namely, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent

Control) Act, 1960, applied.

Following this order, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine, without further discussion. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to refer to

certain other factors, as they would show how patently untenable the contention of the petitioner is. S. 18 of the Act, reads as follows : -

Execution of orders

(1) Every order made under Ss. 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and every order passed on appeal under S. 23 or on revision under 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.

(2) An order passed in execution under sub-see. (1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision.

From a reading of sub-see. (1), it may be seen that the Rent Controller has not been constituted a Civil Court for levying execution of orders

passed under Ss. 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the Act or any order passed in appeal under S. 23 or any order passed in revision under S. 25 of the

Act. On the other hand, sub-sec. (1) merely states that every such order, referred to above, should be executed as if it is an order of a civil Court.

The section then says that ""for this purpose, the Controller shall have all the powers of a civil Court"". Therefore, for the limited purpose of

executing an order, the Controller has been conferred by statute the powers exercisable by a civil Court. Such being the case, it is not open to the

petitioner to contend that the Rent Controller has been conferred the status of a civil Court under S. 18(l) and therefore an order passed by the

Rent Controller in. execution should be subject to further scrutiny by the appellate and revisional Courts in the same manner as an order passed by

a civil Court in execution proceedings is subject to scrutiny.

It has then to be pointed out that subset. (1) of S. 18 refers to riders passed under various sections, viz., 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17. While the

orders passed under Ss. 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17 will be orders passed in favour of tenants. S. 15 provides for a tenant to reoccupy after repairs

and S. 16 provides for a tenant to reoccupy the building released under S. 14(1)(b), if the landlord fails to demolish the building as per the

undertaking given by him. More worthy of notice is S. 17, which safeguards the rights of tenants by interdicting landlords from disrupting the

amenities enjoyed by the tenants, If we accepted the contention of the petitioner that an affected party is entitled to an appeal or revision against

every order passed by the Rent Controller in execution, then it would lead to a chaotic situation because the tenants, for whose protection the Act

has been framed, will stand deprived of immediate benefits under Ss. 15, 16 and 17. A landlord, who is called upon under S. 15 or 16 to restore

possession of the building to the tenant or to restore amenities to a tenant under S. 17, can contumaciously drag on the proceedings by challenging

the order of the Rent Controller in appeal or revision and harass the tenant. Similarly a landlord who is urgently in need of his building for his own

occupation or by way of additional accommodation can also be kept at bay by an unreasonable tenant preferring an appeal or, revision against the

order of execution and dragging on matters endlessly. It is in order to prevent such a calamitous situation, the Legislature has advisedly and

designedly enacted sub-sec. (2) and specifically provided that an order passed in execution under sub-sec. (1) shall not be subject to any appeal

or revision.

Thus, it has to be pointed out that legacy as well as factually, the petitioner''s contention is totally bereft of substance and the writ petition docs

not lie and accordingly it will stand dismissed.

Petition dismissed.