Madras High Court
P.R.Anuradha ... Revision vs Mrs.V.Padmavathy on 23 June, 2010
Author: M.Venugopal
Bench: M.Venugopal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.06.2010 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE. M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.No.168 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.1366 of 2006 P.R.Anuradha ... Revision petitioner/Defendant Vs... Mrs.V.Padmavathy ... Respondent/ Plaintiff Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2005 passed by the Hon'ble III Small Cause Court Judge, Chennai, in the Ejectment Suit No.36 of 2002. For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Kalaiselvan For respondent : Mr.K.Mani J U D G M E N T
The Revision petitioner/Defendant has projected this Civil Revision Petition before this Court as against the judgment dated 16.03.2005 in Ejectment Suit No.36 of 2002 passed by the Learned III Small Cause Court Judge, Chennai.
2. The trial Court namely, III Small Cause Court in the judgment in Ejectment Suit No.36 of 2002 dated 16.03.2005 has among other things observed that
(a) the suit vacant site has not been given as Gift to the Revision petitioner/Defendant's mother in law namely, Thayammal and
(b) the Revision petitioner/Defendant is a tenant of the land in the suit property.
(c) the Revision petitioner/Defendant has constructed additional building without the permission of Respondent/Plaintiff.
(d) the Revision petitioner/Defendant has constructed the building without the permission of the Respondent/Plaintiff and therefore she is liable to be evict and
(e) the Revision petitioner/Defendant as tenant cannot cannot deny the title of the landlord in respect of the suit property and resultantly decreed the suit with costs and further directed the Revision petitioner/Defendant to vacate from the suit land and hand over possession within a period of three months.
3. Being dissatisfied with the judgment passed in Ejectment Suit No.36 of 2002 dated 16.03.2005 by the trial Court on behalf of Respondent/Plaintiff witness P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to A16 were marked on the side of Revision petitioner/Defendant. D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B8 were marked.
4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner/Defendant, the judgment of the trial Court dated 16.03.2005 in Ejectment Suit No.36 of 2002 is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law, since the same has been passed without jurisdiction.
5. It is the further contention on the side of the Revision petitioner/Defendant that the trial Court has committed an error in holding that the Respondent/Plaintiff is the owner of the land and in fact the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is not maintainable, besides, the same being misconceived.
6. Continuing further, the Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/Defendant urges before this Court that the land admittedly belongs to Duraisamy Naidu and he died leaving behind his daughter and when his legalheirs are alive, the Respondent/Plaintiff has no right to file the suit.
7. Expatiating his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner/Defendant submits that the trial Court while decreeing the suit has not passed any specific order in respect of the superstructure and without specific order for the superstructure, the decree for delivery of possession cannot be executed and moreover, trial Court has not appreciated of a crucial fact that already the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.2017 of 2002 before the City Civil Court, Chennai which ended in dismissal.
8. The Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner/Defendant also puts forward a plea that the school has been transferred to one Shekar from the year 2002 and he has not been impleaded as a necessary party in the Ejectment suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff and therefore the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is not maintainable before the trial Court.
9. Lastly, it is the contention of the Revision petitioner/Defendant that the Respondent/Plaintiff is only a third party and indeed she has not proved her title to the suit property, but these material factual and legal aspects of the matter have not been adverted to by the trial Court in a pragmatic manner, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the revision petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.
10. According to the Learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner/Defendant the proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 relating to recovery of possession of immovable property is not a suit and that Section 18 of the said Act which speaks of the suits in which, the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction does not apply to the present case on hand eventhough the Respondent/Plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction at Rs.6,300/- when in fact Section 18 of the Act confers jurisdiction on a small cause court subject to the exception in Section 19 that it shall have the jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature when the amount or value of a subject matter does not exceed twenty thousand rupees.
11. In this connection, this Court pertinently makes a useful reference to Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 which enjoins as follows:
For the words "two thousand rupees" the words "five thousand rupees" substituted by Act 26 of 1995.
12. In support of the contention that the proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 are not suits, the Learned counsel for the Revision petitioner cites the decision (Mir) Hyder Ali Sahib Vs. Amirudin Sahib and others, AIR 1929 Madras 69, wherein, it is inter-alia held that since the decision of the Court based on proceedings under Section 41 to 49 (Chap.7) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 cannot be said to be a decree as per Section 2(2) of Civil Procedure Code.
13. The Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 eventhough substituted the words rupees "two thousand rupees" the words "five thousand rupees" substituted by Act 26 of 1995 since the said Section has not been amended in the manner in which Section 18 of the Act has been amended namely, for the words "two thousand rupees" the words "twenty thousand rupees" substituted by Act 26 of 1995, present suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff under Section 41 of the Act is not maintainable because, the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction has been determined at Rs.6,300/- on the basis of tenancy.
14. The Learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner/Defendant submits that since the decision rendered by the trial Court in Ejectment suit No.36 of 2002 date 16.03.2005 is not a decree in terms of Section 2(2) of Civil Procedure Code an appeal cannot be filed and therefore the revision petition filed by the Revision petitioner/Defendant before this Court is perfectly maintainable.
15. The sum and substance of the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is what is applicable to Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 cannot be made applicable to proceedings under Section 41 of the Act.
16. The Learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner contends that the plaint filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff in Ejectment suit No.36 of 2002 on the file of the Learned III Small Cause Court Judge, must be directed to be returned to be represented before proper forum since on the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand before us only a civil suit will lie before the competent civil court.
17. The Learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court to the decision P.Ramasami Naidu Vs. Venkatramanjulu and another, AIR 1914 Madras 301, wherein, it is held that the Hon'ble High Court has power under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code to revise the proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.
18. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff submits that as per Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, the small cause court has the jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature when the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed rupees twenty thousand and in fact the words of two thousand rupees have been substituted as rupees twenty thousand rupees by Act 26 of 1995 and inasmuch as in the Ejectment Suit No.36 of 2002 filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff before the trial Court, the valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction has been shown as Rs.6,300/-, the suit filed is perfectly maintainable and it is not correct for the Revision petitioner/Defendant to contend that Section 41 proceedings is not a suit and the same is not applicable to the case on hand.
19. Further, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff contends that the Ejectment suit has been filed in October 2002 and all jurisdiction matters have been decided in Act 26 of 1995 and also that the explanation I of Section 18 speaks of the suit claim, by a setoff admitted by both parties, reduced to a balance not exceeding [twenty thousand rupees] the Small Cause Court shall have jurisdiction to try such suit and also for the words "two thousand rupees" the words "Rupees twenty thousand" has been substituted by Act 26 of 1995 and therefore in law the Ejectment suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is clearly sustainable in law.
20. That apart, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff brings it to the notice of this Court that the Revision petitioner/Defendant received the notice as per Section 11 of the Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act 1922 and he has been offered the compensation and as per Section 9 of the Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act, no application has been filed by the Revision petitioner/Defendant and she has also not raised the plea and since an order passed under Section 9 of the Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act is appealable one since the Revision petitioner/Defendant has not filed the appeal the judgment passed in the Ejectment suit No.36 of 2002 dated 16.03.2005 is final and binds the civil Revision petitioner/Defendant.
21. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff cites the decision of this Court Pakkiammal Vs Anaiappan, 2000(III) CTC 228, wherein, it is held as follows:
Time and again, the upper forums of law have concluded that on account of misquoting the provisions of law by a party would not deny him the proper remedy that is sought for in the petition etc.
22. He also relies on the decision in Ranjan Sharma Vs. Rambabu Vaishya and others, AIR 2003 MADHYA PRADESH 186, wherein, at page 188 in paragraph No.11 it is observed as follows:
The powers under Section 115, CPC are intended to be exercised with a view to subserve and not to defeat the ends of justice. Where the order of the Court below is in the interest of justice, the High Court can refuse to interfere under Section 115, CPC even if the Court below has no jurisdiction to pass such an order.
23. He draws the attention of this Court to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mathai Vs. Varkey, 1963 K.L.T. 1133, wherein, at page 1134, it is laid down as follows:
If the party aggrieved does not take appropriate steps to have that error corrected the erroneous decree will hold good and will not be open to challenge on the basis of being a nullity.
24. On the side of the Respondent/Plaintiff, the Learned Counsel relies on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri M.L.Sethi Vs. Shri R.P.Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379 wherein, at page 2380 it is observed that An erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the subordinate court which has no relation to the questions of jurisdictions of that court, cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115 of Civil Procedure code.
25. Proceeding further, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff submits that Section 48 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act enjoins the small cause courts to follow the procedure prescribed for a court of first instance by the Code of Civil Procedure as far as may be and except herein otherwise provided in respect of all proceedings under chapter 7 of the Act. He also refers to Section 4(1) of the Act 26 of 1995 (further to amend the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882) which runs as follows:
All suits pending in the High Court on the ate of the commencement of this Act and which would be within the cognizance of the Madras City Civil Court under the provisions of the Madras City Civil Court Act, 1892. (Central Act VII of 1892) as amended by this Act shall stand transferred to the Madras City Civil Court.
26. He also refers to Section 2(7) of the said Act which is as follows:
In Section 41 for the words "two thousand rupees", the words "five thousand rupees" shall be substituted.
27. He also cites Section 2(3) of the Act 28 of 1995 and the Act further to amend Tamilnadu Civil Courts Act 1873 and the Madras City Civil Court Act 1892, which speaks as follows:
In Section 28 (i) for the words "two thousand rupees", the words "twenty thousand rupees" shall be substituted;
(ii) for the words "five hundred rupees", the words "five thousand rupees shall be substituted.
28. Besides, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff also quotes the R.O.C.No.3035-A/95/FI dated 17.10.1995 issued by this Court which runs as follows:
A copy of the Presidency Small Cause Court and the Provincial Small Cause Courts (Amendment) Act, 1995 (Act No.26 of 1995) and the Tamilnadu Civil Courts Act and the Madras City Civil Court (Amendment) Act 10995 (Act No.28 of 1995 ) published in Part IV Section 2 of the Tamilnadu Government Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 20.09.1995 and 04.10.1995, are enclosed herewith for taking necessary follow up action in the matters.
The District Judges are requested to bring to the notice of all the Sub Judges and the District Munsifs in their respective units, the aforesaid amendment Acts to take necessary follow up action in the matter. They are also requested to inform all Bar Associations in their respective District about the enhancement of the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Courts.
The Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Madras end the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes Madras are also requested to take necessary follow up action in the matter.
The Deputy Registrars, Original Side and Appellate Side and the Sub Assistant Registrar, Judicial, High Court, Madras are requested to take necessary follow up action in the matter and communicate the action taken in this regard to the Registrar, High Court, Madras.
The date of coming into force of the Act will be intimated soon.
(Sd) Registrar High Court, Madras Dated 17.10.1995
29. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff cites decision in kaliaperumal Naidu Vs. Kuppuswami Naidu and others, 1994 II MLJ 147, wherein, it is held as follows:
It is well-settled legal proposition that quoting wrong provision of law in the application cannot be a bar by itself in granting the remedy.
30. He also cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mylapore Club Vs. State of Tamilnadu and another, 2005 (5) CTC 494, wherein, it is held that by claiming benefit of Section9 by filing petition tenant has set in motion process of acquiring rights - Legislature can provide that such process can continue where pending proceedings are affected by amendment Since concluded judicial proceedings viz. where orders for possession have been executed or decrees satisfied in full before date of amendment, are saved there is no interference by legislature with judicial proceedings.
31. Moreover, on the side of the Respondent/Plaintiff the decision in Ghulam Jilani and others Vs. Mahammad Hassan, 12 MLJ 77, is brought to the notice of this Court wherein, it is observed as follows:
Arbitrators are Judges of law and fact, and mere error of law on their part even on a question whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit does not vitiate the award. They may give an award on the whole case or on each point.
32. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff cites the decision of this Court in Malini Parthasarathy Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (2007) 2 MLJ 416, wherein, it is held that for maintaining an application under Section 9 of the Tamilnadu City Tenants' Protection Act, only a tenant in actual possession of the demised land can file the same.
33. He also relies on the decision P.Thirumalai Vs. M.P.Kottamalai Ammal, 88 LW 519, wherein it is among other things held that It was not open to the petitioner to raise this question of under-valuation, even if true which is not accepted at the time of hearing of the second appeals, and afortiorari after disposal of the second appeals.
34. He seeks in aid to the decision in M.R.Nataraja Naicker Vs. M.Kamalamma, 1958 II MLJ 417, wherein, it is held as follows:
The termination of a tenancy based upon the landlord taking advantage of a forfeiture clause falls within Section 41 and the Court has jurisdiction to decide the question. The fact that the defence raises the question of title in that the tenancy has not been validly terminated does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court which is bound to decide the question under Chapter VII of the Act.
35. He cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.A.Rahim Vs. B.Kannaiah Prasad, 77 L.W 522, wherein, this Court has held as follows:
The mere fact that the rent payable under he old lease had either been increased or reduced by consent of parties cannot necessarily imply that the original relationship of landlord and tenant had been put an end to and a fresh one established. The fact that by reason of an agreement, the original rent stipulated had been altered cannot necessarily mean that a fresh tenancy had come into existence between the parties.
36. Further, he draws the attention of this Court to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shree Hari Chemicals Export Ltd Vs. Union of India and another (2006) 1 SCC 396, wherein, it is held that wrong mentioning of a section would not be a ground to refuse relief to an assessee if he is otherwise entitled thereto.
37. He cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bahrein Petroleum Co.Ltd., Vs. P.J.Pappu and another, AIR 1966 SC 634, wherein, at page 635 it is held as follows:
Where the defendant allows the trial Court to proceed to judgment without raising the objection as to the place of suing and takes the chance of a verdict in his favour, he waives the objection, and will not be subsequently permitted to raise it. It is even possible to say that long and continued participation by the defendant in the proceedings without any protest may, in an appropriate case, amount to a waiver of the objection.
38. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff cites the decision of this Court in J.Lease & Co and 2 others Vs. M.S.A Mohamed Farooq, 2000 (III) CTC 423, wherein, at page 425 it is held as follows:
The tenancy being in respect of the vacant land and the superstructure having been constructed long before the coming into force of the Act as amended by Tamilnadu Act 19 of 1955, only the Act will apply and not the general law. The tenants are entitled to purchase the site under Section 9 of the Act. An application has also been filed for the said purpose. All necessary informations required by the plaintiff had been furnished in the reply notice.
39. He relies on the decision in D.Sreenivasa Mudaliar Charity, rep.by its Managing Trustee, Saradambal Vs. Dhanasekaran and 8 others, 2001 (3) CTC 520, wherein, it is held as follows:
Tenant cannot deny landlord's title even if such title is defective so long as he is in possession of property as tenant. Once tenancy is admitted question of title to grant lease is irrelevant.
In the aforesaid decision at page No.524 it is observed as follows:
Sec.116 of the Indian Evidence Act, which has been solely relied on by the Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, runs as follows:
"116.Estoppel of tenant and of licensee of person in possession. No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.
An analysis of the abovesaid provision would show that a tenant is absolutely forbidden from denying that his landlord at the beginning of the tenancy, had title to the immovable property. It provides that neither a tenant nor anyone claiming through a tenant shall be heard to deny that the particular landlord had at that date a title to the property. There is no exception even for cases where the lease itself discloses the defect of title.
The Division Bench of this Court while considering the scope of Sec.116 of the Evidence Act in the decision in Guruswami Vs. Ranganathan, AIR 1954 Mad. 402, has held as follows:-
"(6) Section 116 of the Evidence Act enacts that "No tenant of immovable property, or persons claiming through such tenant, shall during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property".
40. He also cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Palani Ammal Vs. Viswanatha Chettiar (dead) and others, 1999 T.L.N.J.12, wherein at page 18 it is observed as follows:
So far as the alternative claim for compensation was concerned it was submitted that once the defendant by her unequivocal conduct of denying the title of plaintiff No.3 who is the real owner of the property had forfeited the protection of the Protection Act there would remain no occasion for her to get the benefit of even Section 3 of the very same Act. That under these circumstances, as per the general principles of Transfer of Property Act when suit for eviction is decreed against her all that she can get is the right to remove the superstructure put up by her on the plaintiffs land as provided by Section 108(h) of the T.P. Act read with Section 109 thereof. It was therefore contended that the common decision of the High Court impugned in these appeals calls for no interference.
41. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff cites the following decisions:
(a) In Subramaniya Moopanar (died) and others Vs. R.Sumathi and others , 1999 (III) MLJ page 651, wherein it is held as follows:
The non-production of a Will does not lead to loss of a Will nor could such a contingency presumed nor could it be stated that the Will could have been revoked.
(b) In D.Balasubramanian Vs. R.Ramaswamy Naidu and others, 1994 (II) MLJ page 402, it is held that in view of the denial of title, the tenant is not entitled to any right to claim compensation for superstructures under Sec.3 of the Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act.
(c) In P.Janardhana Rao Vs. Kannan and others, (2004) 4 MLJ 118 (S.C), wherein, at page No.119 it is held as follows:
In a suit for ejectment while in execution of a decree if resistance is offered or where obstruction proceeds from the claimant claiming to be in possession in his own right and whose claim cannot be rejected on the ground of want of good faith, without investigation, the decree-holder must proceed under O.21, Rule 97.
(d) In the decision M.N.K.R.Nagappa and others Vs. Nagappan, 1997(I) MLJ 481, wherein, at page 482, it is held as follows:
When the respondent did not claim any compensation by invoking Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act and also having forfeited such right by virtue of denial of the landlord and tenant relationship, the compensation granted under the judggment of the lower court cannot be said to be one under the provisions of the City Tenants' Protection Act.
(e) In Sundari Ammal, Tuticorin District and another Vs. Kandappan, Tutocorin District, (2006) 1 MLJ 17, this Court has held as follows:
On a combined reading of Secs.23 and 25 of the Act, it is clear that as against the order passed by the Rent Controller, only an appeal is to be filed before the appellate authority. The order passed by the Rent Controller cannot be challenged invoking Art.227 of the Constitution of India.
42. A Perusal of the plaint filed under Section 41 of the Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act in Ejectment Suit No.36 of 2002 on the file of III Small Cause Court indicates that the Respondent/Plaintiff has prayed for a judgment being passed against the Revision petitioner/Defendant directing her to quit and deliver vacant possession of the property bearing old No.89, New No.84, Kothawalchavai Street, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015 to the plaintiff. Obviously, the Respondent/Plaintiff instead of quoting the correct Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act 1882 has inadvertently mentioned as Section 41 of the Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act.
43. It appears that the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed a suit earlier in O.S.No.2017 fo 2002 for a permanent injunction against the Revision petitioner/Defendant and the same was dismissed by the Learned 16th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court without costs on 30.08.2004 holding that the Respondent/Plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of permanent mandatory injunction.
44. It is to be noted that only if an order is passed by a Court as per Section 9 of the Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922, an Appeal can be filed as per Section 9(A) of the said Act. Admittedly, in the present case on hand before us, no order has been passed under Section 9 of the Act and therefore there is no scope for filing of an appeal by the Revision petitioner/Defendant as per Section 9(A) of the Tamilnadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1922.
45. The ingredients of Section 14 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 are as follows:
The State Government may invest the Registrar with the powers of a judge under this Act for the trial of suits in which the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed two hundred rupees. And subject to the orders of Chief Judge, any Judge of the Small Cause Court may, whenever he thinks fit, transfer from his own file t the file of the Registrar any suit which the latter is competent to try.
46. Section 35 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 enjoins as follows:
The Registrar may receive applications for the execution of decrees of any value passed by the Court and may commit and discharge judgment debtors, and make any order in respect thereof which a Judge of the Court might make under this Act.
47. On a careful consideration of respective contentions, eventhough Section 18 of The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 envisages the jurisdiction of the small cause court to try all suits of a civil nature subject to the exception in Section 19, when the amount or value of the subject matter does not exceed twenty thousand rupees and notwithstanding the fact in the present case on hand, the Respondent/Plaintiff has valued the plaint for the purpose of Court Fee and jurisdiction at Rs.6,300/-. Inasmuch as the Ejectment suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 and bearing in mind of a very essential fact that Section 41 has only substituted the words two thousand rupees with that of the words rupees five thousand by virtue of Section 26 of 1995 and in reality since the said Section 41 of the Act has not been amended like that of Section 18 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 with reference to the value of the subject matter Viz., rupees twenty thousand this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff on 15.11.2002 is perse not maintainable before the trial Court Viz., III Small Causes Court, Chennai. In that view of the matter, this Court without going into the merits of the case between the parties, allows the Civil Revision Petition to prevent an aberration of justice. Since this Court has held that the Ejectment suit filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff is not maintainable before the trial Court namely, III Small Causes Court, Chennai, the findings so rendered by the Court in regard to the issues No.1 to 6 framed by it in the suit are set aside by this Court to promote substantial cause of justice. The judgement of the trial Court in Ejectment suit No.36 of 2002 dated 16.03.2005 is set aside by this Court holding that the suit is not maintainable before the trial Court namely, III Small Causes Court.
48. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1366 of 2006 is closed. The trial Court Viz., III Small Cause Court is directed to return the plaint to the Respondent/Plaintiff so as to enable the Respondent/Plaintiff to present the same before competent forum in the manner known to law and in accordance with law.
23.06.2010 nb Index : Yes Internet : Yes To III Small Cause Court, Chennai.
M.VENUGOPAL, J.
nb C.R.P.No.168 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.1366 of 2006 .06.2010