Syed Meeran Mohammed Hussainy vs S. Babu

K. Kalyanasundaram, J—This civil revision is filed to strike off the petition filed under section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, in RCOP No. 239 of 2014.

The respondent filed RCOP No. 239 of 2014 against the petitioner under section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act contending that he was inducted as a tenant from 01.01.2011 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- and he had also paid an advance of Rs. 24,000/-; that in the month of September 2011, the landlord insisted for further advance amount of Rs. 31,000/-, which was also paid under cheque No. 080872 and that the landlord enhanced the rent at Rs. 2,000/- per month from October 2011 and demanded payment by way of cheque. So, the tenant paid the rents for the month of October 2011 and November 2011 by cheques and the subsequent payment made through cheques were not encashed. The payment tendered by the tenant was also not received by the landlord and therefore, the tenant issued a lawyer''s notice, dated 06.01.2014 for adjustment of the excess advance amount and also sought details to deposit the rent into the bank account.

The tenant has further contended that his father G. Selvaraj was the original tenant under the landlord and now, he is carrying on a rival proprietary business under the name and style ''''Sairam Engineering Works'''' in the nearby place at Old No. 62/1, New No. 153, Jani Jan Khan Road, Royapettah, Chennai 600 0014 and he colluding with the landlord, attempted to spoil the business of the tenant. It is further alleged that on 24.01.2014, the tenant sent 5 money orders to the landlord for a total sum of Rs. 22,853/- for the rental arrears from January to December 2013, which was also refused by the landlord and hence the petition.

The landlord filed this revision contending that the respondent is the son of G. Selvaraj, who was inducted as a tenant in the petition premises; the landlord had initiated proceedings against him in RCOP No. 1618 of 2013 for fixation of fair rent and RCOP No. 1868 of 2013 for eviction and thereafter, the respondent has filed the present petition with mala fide intention in support of his father to prolong the above Rent Control Original Proceedings. The petitioner/landlord has mainly contended that the respondent is not a tenant under him and there is no cause of action for filing the petition and the petition filed by the 3rd party is not maintainable.

Heard Mr. S. Sathiaseelan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sundaragopal, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

It is the contention of the landlord/petitioner that the father of the respondent namely G. Selvaraj was inducted as a tenant in the petition premises in the year 1984 on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and thereafter, the rent was periodically increased and from the month of November 2011, he agreed to pay the rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month; in the month of October 2012, the landlord requested the tenant to vacate the premises for his own use and occupation and the tenant had also agreed to vacate the premises within three months, however, he failed to vacate the premises and also committed default in the payment of rent. According to the landlord, the respondent is not a tenant in respect of the petition premises and he had filed the present RCOP No. 239 of 2014 under section 8(5) of the Rent Control Act only to help the original tenant and therefore, the petition is liable to be strike off, as it is abuse of process of law.

According to the respondent, his father G. Selvaraj vacated the tenanted premises in the year 2010 and he was inducted in the petition premises from 01.01.2011 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/-. The respondent has also contended that he paid Rs. 24,000/- at the time of inception of the tenancy and thereafter, paid additional advance amount by way of cheque in the month of September 2011. Further rents for October 2011 to November 2011 were paid by way of cheques, however, later landlord refused to receive the future rents. Hence, the petition is maintainable.

In the case on hand, the respondent has filed petition in RCOP No. 239 of 2014 seeking permission to deposit the rent into court and the petitioner/landlord has also filed his counter, disputing the status of the respondent and the maintainability of the petition mainly contending that the respondent is not a tenant under him in the petition premises. During the pendency of the original petition, the landlord has filed this civil revision to strike off the petition contending that it is an abuse of process of law. The petitioner has also contended that he had already initiated eviction proceedings against him in RCOP No. 1868 of 2013 on the grounds of willful default and own use and occupation and only to drag on the proceedings, the present original petition was filed.

In Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2011) 1 CTC 854 : (2010) 7 JT 529 : (2011) 1 RCR(Rent) 1 : (2010) 7 SCALE 428 : (2010) 8 SCC 329 : (2010) 8 SCR 836 : (2010) AIRSCW 6387 , the Hon''ble Apex Court has considered the exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:--

"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court''s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(a) A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a Petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by the High Court under these two articles is also different.

........

(c) High Courts cannot, at the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the Orders of Tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, exercise of this power, act as a Court of Appeal over the Orders of the Court or Tribunal subordinate to it. In cases, where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

.......

(e) According to the ratio in Waryam Singh and Another Vs. Amarnath and Another, AIR 1954 SC 215 : (1954) 1 SCR 565 , followed in subsequent cases, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in Order only to keep the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it "within the bounds of their authority".

(f) In order to ensure that law is followed by such Tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them.

(g) Apart from the situations pointed in (e) & (f), High Court can interfere in exercise of its power superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the Orders of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic Principles of Natural Justice have been flouted.

.......

(k) The power is discretionary and has to be exercised on Equitable Principle. In an appropriate case, the power can be exercised suo motu.

(l) On a proper appreciation of the wide and unfettered power of the High Court under Article 227, it transpires that the main object of this Article is to keep strict administrative and judicial control by the High Court on the administration of justice within its territory.

(m) The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in Order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to the High Court.

.............

(o) An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality."

It is settled law that contentious issues could be decided only after full fledged trial. In the instant case to reach a finding on the disputed question whether the respondent is a statutory tenant or not, requires evidence and the RCOP cannot be struck off at this stage.

Keeping in mind, the principles laid down in the decision cited supra and in view of my findings supra, this court does not find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the result, this revision is dismissed. However, no order as to cost. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rent Controller shall complete the trial and dispose of the Rent Control Original Petition on merits and in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period three months from the date of receipt of this order.