Thangavelu vs Arumugha Pandithar

S. Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.—This Revision Petition is filed by a tenant of the respondent. The tenant filed an application for fixation of fair

rent under the provisions of Act (XXIV of 1956). The application was posted before the Rent Court for 21st December, 1958. The landlord was

absent on that date, and the Court, after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the tenant, fixed the fair rent ex parte. The landlord

thereupon filed an application under Rule 4 (g) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Rules, 1956, for setting aside the ex

parte order. The Rent Court declined to set aside the ex parte order, as it was not satisfied that the landlord was prevented by sufficient cause

from appearing in Court. The landlord thereupon took up the matter in appeal to the Rent Tribunal, which came to a different conclusion. It held

that there was sufficient excuse for the landlord to be absent on the date of the hearing, and accordingly set aside the ex parte order, fixing fair rent.

This Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Rent Tribunal.

Mr. S. Palaniswami, appearing on behalf of the tenant contends that the Rent Tribunal (District Munsif) had no jurisdiction to set aside the order

of the Rent Court on the ground that no appeal would lie u/s 9(2) of the Fair Rent Act against the order of the Rent Court, declining to set aside

the ex parte order. Section 9(2) states that an appeal would lie to the Rent Tribunal from every decision of the Rent Court. It has been held that the

words "" every decision "" refers only to the final decision affecting rights of parties. In N. Santhanam Iyer alias Santhanarama Iyer Vs. Somasundara

Vanniar, . Somasumdaram, J., held that an appeal would not lie against an order refusing to permit the filing of an additional counter-affidavit. In a

more recent case Peria Maria Gounder v. Ramaswami Gounder (1952) 1 M.L.J. 106, I held that no appeal lay to the Rent Tribunal from the

determination of a preliminary issue by the Rent Court. It is contended for the petitioner that the decision declining to set aside an ex parte order

cannot be said to be a final order so as to entitle the aggrieved party to appeal against it. I am unable to agree. When the Rent Court declined to

set aside the ex parte order,, it was a final order so far as that Court was concerned; the order undoubtedly affects the rights of parties, for, if the

order were to exist, the landlord will have to submit to the existing order fixing the fair rent. '' Final order'' does not mean that the order should be

on the fair rent application itself, an order which declines to set aside an ex parte order will certainly be a decision of the Court within Section 9(2)

of the Act. I am therefore of opinion that the Rent Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order of the Rent Court and that its

interference in the matter is justified.

The civil Revision Petition fails and it is dismissed with costs.