Madras High Court
P.Jayachandran vs Loganathan on 28 April, 2010
Author: S.Tamilvanan
Bench: S.Tamilvanan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.04.2010 CORAM : THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN C.R.P (NPD) No.1151 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 P.Jayachandran .... Petitioner vs. Loganathan .... Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed against the order, dated 19.06.2009 made in M.P.No.262 of 2009 in R.C.A.No.213 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar Rajan For Respondent : Mr.D.S.Ramesh O R D E R
This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.06.2009, being passed in M.P.No.262 of 2009 in R.C.A.No.213 of 2009 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The petitioner is the landlord and the respondent is the tenant in the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P.No.1399 of 2007, that was filed by the petitioner under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, as amended by Act XXIII of 1963 (herein after referred to as Act) , on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the period from December 2005 to February 2007.
3. As per the decretal order, dated 24.04.2009, the learned Rent Controller allowed the Rent Control Original Petition and ordered eviction of the respondent / tenant, on the ground of wilful default, time for eviction was given two months, on 24.04.2009. Aggrieved by which, the respondent herein preferred Rent Control Appeal, wherein the respondent / tenant filed a petition, seeking stay of the operation of the order and decretal order of eviction, dated 24.04.2009 passed in the R.C.O.P pending disposal of the R.C.A.
4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as per order, dated 19.06.2009, the Rent Control Appellate Authority granted conditional stay directing the respondent / tenant to deposit a sum of Rs.75,000/-, being the arrears of rent on or before 15.07.2009. In the said docket order, the Court below has specifically stated that the tenant agreed to deposit the said amount, hence, the order was passed, however, on 15.07.2009, the respondent / tenant was called absent. The conditional order, dated 19.06.2009 was also not complied with by the petitioner therein, hence, the matter was adjourned to 06.08.2009.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the copy of the docket orders passed by the court below on 19.06.2009, 15.07.2009, 06.08.2009, 07.08.2009, 21.08.2009, 04.09.2009, 07.09.2009, 08.10.2009, 21.10.2009, 11.11.2009, 23.11.2009, 26.11.2009 and argued that though the order, dated 19.06.2009 was not complied with by the tenant, who is the respondent herein, the Court below suo moto modified the order and reduced the amount to be deposited as Rs.10,000/- by 07.08.2009 and as per the order, dated 07.08.2009, directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs.65,000/- out of the aforesaid Rs.75,000/- on or before 21.08.2009. In spite of non-compliance of the order, dated 19.06.2009, the stay was extended up to 21.08.2009. It was argued that despite the fact that the conditional order, dated 19.06.2009 was not complied with by the respondent / tenant, then and there, without assigning any reason, the Court below has adjourned the petition on various dates, by extending the stay. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the docket orders being passed by the Court below extending time are against Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act and also an abuse of process of the Court, hence, to meet the ends of justice, the revision petition has been filed by the petitioner / landlord under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Per contra, Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / tenant submitted that the Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable and the learned counsel for the respondent / tenant submitted that there is no final order has been passed in the petition and further, the petitioner cannot maintain the revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, without filing revision petition by invoking Section 25 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / tenant also contended that there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as landlord and tenant. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein, the respondent had paid Rs.1,70,000/- to the petitioner /landlord and submitted that as per the agreement between the parties, the respondent need not pay any rent and in lieu of the interest payable for the said amount, the same has to be adjusted towards the rent and therefore, the R.C.O.P itself is not at all maintainable.
7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has to consider the following issues :
1. Whether there is any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent herein ?
2. Whether the Civil Revision Petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is legally maintainable and whether the revision has to be allowed on the grounds raised by the petitioner herein ?
8. In order to enlighten this Court on the legal aspects, the following decisions were cited by both the learned counsel :
1. A.Rafeeq Ahmed & Co., etc., vs. M/s. Montari Leather Ltd., etc., 2002-1-LW 133
2. Sakunthala vs. Devi, 1999 ( 1) MLJ 101
3. Sri Sringeri Mutt Sree Saradha Peetam rep. by its Power Agent T.Srinivasa Raghavan vs. S.Ganesan & another, 1998 TLNJ 40
4. Murugesan vs. C.P.Nataraja Mudaliar, 100 Law Weekly 157
5. M.Balasubramanian vs. M/s. Pandia Nadar Firm, 1991 LW (Part 22) 334
6. Chenchu Ramiah, P vs. A.M.Noohu Nachia and another, 1991-1-LW 37
7. Lalchand Brothers vs. Purushotham Mundra, 2009 (2) CTC 137
8. P.Kannaiah vs. V.R.Chinnaraj, 2009 (1) CTC 817 9 Chellapandi, N vs. C.Kaathan, 2007 (4) CTC 561
10. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd., vs. Federal Motors Pvt., Ltd., 2005 (1) CTC 53
11. Velmurugan vs. Govindarajan, 2002 (2) MLJ 53 (S.C)
12. Ouseph Mathai vs. M.Abdul Khadir, 2002 (I) SCC 319
13. Prakash, R.N vs. Saraswathi, 1998 (III) CTC 725
14. Mohan Singh vs. International Airport Authority of India, 1997 (9) SCC 132
15. Official Liquidator vs. Dharti Dhan (P) Ltd., 1977 (2) SCC 166
9. In Murugesan vs. C.P.Nataraja Mudaliar, reported in 100 Law Weekly 157, though an amendment sought for correcting the door number and rent amount in an eviction petition, on the ground of inadvertent errors was declined by the Rent Controller, the revision preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was held maintainable by this Court.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ouseph Mathai vs. M.Abdul Khadir, reported in 2002 (I) SCC 319, has ruled that the High Court may intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution, when there is flagrant abuse of power, resulted in injustice to any party, though mere wrong decision is not a ground for exercising the jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. This Court in Sri Sringeri Mutt Sree Saradha Peetam rep. by its Power Agent vs. S.Ganesan & another, 1998 TLNJ 40, held that though it was resisted that the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable, on the ground of appeal pending in a matter relating to grant of injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC, it was held that the Civil Revision Petition was maintainable, since the same was filed prior to the filing of the appeal preferred before the District Court. It was held that person, who comes to court for equitable remedy must come with clean hands without suppression of material facts, accordingly, vacated the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner therein and the petition was also dismissed by this Court by the order passed in the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
12. In Chenchu Ramiah, P vs. A.M.Noohu Nachia and another, reported in 1991-1-LW 37, this Court held that the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the interim order of injunction granted under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC was maintainable on the ground that the suit was instituted without any bonafide intention to get justice, but only to obtain an interim order from the Court to use the same for illegal purpose and therefore, held that the plaintiff therein should not be permitted to prosecute such a suit and ordered struck off the file of the suit.
13. It is not in dispute that the inherent superintending power is vested with the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in order to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to meet the ends of justice. It has been categorically held in various decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court that such a power could be exercised sparingly, when there is no appeal provision available, to seek remedy and regular revision under Section 115 CPC or revision under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in respect of the rent control matters are not available to prevent the abuse of process of Court and to meet the ends of justice.
14. As contended by Mr.R.Sundar Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is brought to light that rental arrears was payable for 52 months by the tenant, who is the respondent in the revision petition. By the impugned order, dated 19.06.2009, the Court below, the Rent Control Appellate Authority passed an order, directing the respondent / tenant to deposit Rs.75,000/- into the Court, being the arrears of rent, stating that he was ready to deposit the amount and accordingly, interim stay was granted till 15.07.2009 with the condition that the respondent herein should deposit Rs.75,000/- into Court on or before the said date, however, on 15.07.2009, the aforesaid conditional order was not complied with by the respondent herein and the interim stay granted on 19.06.2009 was not extended due to the non-compliance of the order and the matter was adjourned to 06.08.2009 and without the compliance, the interim stay was extended by the Court below.
15. It is seen that on 06.08.2009, Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent filed vakalath for the respondent, however, the Court below directed to deposit the respondent, only a minimum of Rs.10,000/- by 07.08.2009, though as per the earlier order, the very same court directed to deposit the respondent a sum of Rs.75,000/- on or before 15.07.2009. On 07.08.2009, the respondent herein was ordered to deposit 10,000/- to the credit of R.C.A.No.213 of 2009 and to deposit the balance sum of Rs.65,000/- on or before 21.08.2009 and accordingly, interim stay was granted by the court below till then.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the act of the respondent / tenant is a clear abuse of process of the Court and the docket orders being passed extending or granting stay by the Court below would encourage the non-compliance of the conditional orders passed by the Court and subsequently, the miscellaneous petition in the R.C.A is being posted on various dates, without proper reasons.
17. As per the copy of the docket orders, it is seen that the miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.262 of 2009 was posted on 21.08.2009, 04.09.2009, 07.09.2009, 08.10.2009, 21.10.2009, 11.11.2009, 23.11.2009 and 26.11.2009 and the interim stay was extended up to 09.12.2009. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as there is no final order, the petitioner herein cannot challenge the order, by way of filing revision petition under Section 25 of the Act, therefore, the course available to the petitioner to seek legal redressal is filing the revision petition only by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to prevent the abuse of process of the Court.
18. Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no jural relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as landlord and tenant and therefore, there is no question of arrears of rent payable to the petitioner by the respondent.
19. It is an admitted fact that the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P.No.1399 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner herein, under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act. As per the copy of the original petition, it is seen that the petitioner / landlord has averred that there had been an understanding between the parties, accordingly, the premises was let out to the respondent in the month of June 1999 for a period of three years and the respondent herein had paid an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and as per the understanding between the parties, after the expiry of 3 years period, the respondent had to vacate and hand over the possession and the petitioner had to return the aforesaid amount to the respondent without any interest. If the respondent / tenant is in occupation, after the expiry of 3 years, the tenant had to pay a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- and the same shall be adjusted from and out of the amount lying with the petitioner / landlord and accordingly Rs.1,68,000/- was adjusted at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month and an ex-gratia amount of Rs.50,000/- was also paid by way of a cheque by the petitioner / landlord to the respondent / tenant.
20. According to the petitioner, the respondent / tenant was in possession and enjoyment of the premises subsequently for about 42 months, without paying any rent on the date of the filing of R.C.O.P. According to the petitioner, Rs.1,68,000/- at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month was adjusted by the petitioner / landlord in the advance amount of Rs.1,70,000/- paid by the respondent, the maintenance charge payable by the respondent also waived. The respondent promised to vacate the premises by 01.03.2006 and the petitioner / landlord agreed to pay an exgratia amount of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent with a confidence and hope and the aforesaid amount Rs.50,000/- was also paid by the petitioner / landlord, by way of cheque, however, the respondent / tenant failed to vacate and hand over the possession of the premises. The respondent / tenant has not paid any rent from 01.03.2006 onwards, which resulted in filing the Rent Control Original Petition.
21. The learned Rent Controller, considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, on 24.04.2009 passed an order of eviction of the respondent / tenant from the premises, on the ground of wilful default and directed the respondent / tenant to vacate and hand over the premises by granting two months time from the date of the order.
22. It is not a case of the respondent herein that he had paid any amount, apart from Rs.1,70,000/- paid in the month of June 1999 to the petitioner / landlord. Similarly, the respondent has not denied that he had received a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque from the petitioner / landlord, however, the respondent / tenant has disputed the jural relationship as landlord and tenant between the petitioner and himself.
23. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, the learned Rent controller disposed the R.C.O.P on merits, whereby held that the respondent herein is only a tenant under the petitioner / landlord in the premises and that there is wilful default in payment of rent, only on the ground of wilful default, eviction was ordered against the respondent, under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act. Even in the impugned order, dated 19.06.2009 passed in M.P.No.262 of 2009, while granting conditional stay in favour of the respondent / tenant, the Court below, Rent Control Appellate Authority has clearly stated that the respondent herein was ready to deposit Rs.75,000/- into the Court, being the arrears of rent, for granting a conditional stay till 15.07.2009. Therefore, the finding by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in the miscellaneous petition is that the respondent is only the tenant under the petitioner / landlord.
24. The aforesaid order, dated 19.06.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority is not under challenge and further, it is not in dispute that the respondent / tenant had filed a suit in O.S.No.8524 of 2006 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, claiming himself to be statutory tenant in the premises and the copy of the plaint and the written statement of the said suit were marked as Exs.P.1 and P.2 in the Rent Control Original Petition. The learned Rent Controller has given a categorical finding that the respondent herein in the course of his cross-examination has admitted that the civil suit was filed by him against the petitioner herein after the expiry of 3 years period, under Ex.R.5 agreement between the petitioner and the respondent herein. The exact date of filing of the suit before the City Civil Court is 06.11.2006, wherein the respondent has categorically admitted that he is a statutory tenant in the premises, under the petitioner herein, therefore, he is estopped from denying the jural relation of landlord and tenant.
25. Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not disputed the aforesaid averments of the respondent made in the plaint relating to the suit in O.S.No.8524 of 2006, however, according to the learned counsel that averment was wrongly made in the plaint only by the earlier counsel, this Court is of the view that such an untenable defence cannot be accepted. After filing the suit in O.S.No.8524 of 2006, stating himself as statutory tenant, under the petitioner herein, it is not open to the respondent to dispute the jural relationship between the petitioner and himself as landlord and tenant. The respondent cannot go round and say that there is no jural relationship as landlord and tenant, having admitted the same in the suit filed by him, since he is estopped from raising such a defence against his own pleadings made in the suit. He cannot shift the burden on the earlier counsel saying that in the plaint, it was wrongly stated by his counsel. Had it been true, he could have approached the appropriate forum by making a complaint against the counsel. It is not in dispute that no complaint was given by him against the earlier counsel before the Bar Council of India. Having filed the suit stating himself as statutory tenant, he cannot raise a plea totally contradictory by saying that there is no jural relationship as landlord and the tenant between the petitioner and himself and it has to be construed as a clear abuse of process of the Court.
26. As per Ex.R.5, agreement marked in the Rent Control Original Petition, the respondent had paid Rs.1,70,000/- to be in possession and enjoyment of the premises only for 3 years from June 1999 and after the expiry of the said period, he filed the civil suit seeking injunction against the petitioner / landlord restraining him from evicting the respondent / tenant, except under due process of law. Though he has stated in the plaint that he was only a tenant, he has not paid any rent. By the impugned order, dated 19.06.2009, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has stated that the respondent herein was ready to deposit Rs.75,000/-, being the arrears of rent for getting interim stay and on that condition interim stay was granted till 15.07.2009, however, the conditional order was not complied with. Subsequently, by order, dated 6.08.2009, the Court below directed the respondent / tenant to deposit only Rs.10,000/-, instead of Rs.75,000/-, directed as per the earlier order and subsequently extended the interim stay till 09.12.2009, by order, dated 26.11.2009.
27. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on a perusal of the copy of the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, the impugned docket orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and other admitted facts, the materials available in the typed set would show, that the plea of the respondent / tenant that there is no jural relationship as landlord and tenant is a clear abuse of process of court. The non-payment of arrears of rent for about 52 months cannot be justified by any court, in view of the provisions of the Act, in the light of the various decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
28. Mr.R.Sundar Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to proviso to Section 10 (2) of the Act. As per Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act, the landlord is entitled to get eviction, if the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due and payable by him in respect of the building, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following, for which the rent is payable.
29. It is not in dispute that the tenant has to be given reasonable opportunity to show-cause for the default in payment of rent. In the instant case, it has been made clear that the respondent / tenant has not paid the rent, even after the filing of the R.C.O.P. As per the said proviso, if the Rent Controller is satisfied that the default is not wilful, he may give the tenant a reasonable time not exceeding fifteen days to pay or tender the rent due and payable by him to the landlord. Mr.D.S.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the above provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, however, the said defence by the respondent / tenant cannot be accepted on the facts and circumstances of this case.
30. This Court in M.Balasubramanian vs. M/s. Pandia Nadar Firm, reported in 1991 LW (Part 22) 334, has held that even when an order of eviction is passed under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Act, the aggregate time which the Rent Controller can give is only three months and not more than that. The said order reads as follows :
"If the object for which eviction is ordered under S.14 (1) (b) of the Act is taken into account, the only conclusion the Court can come to is that in order to alleviate any hardship or suffering to which the tenant may be subjected, the Rent Controller is entitled to give a reasonable time to him and that reasonable time can be fixed as three months in the aggregate on the analogy of the second proviso to S.10 (3) (e) of the Act. If the various grounds mentioned in S.10 (3) are taken into account along with the second proviso to S.10 (3) (e), there appears to be no justification for providing for a longer time, when an order for eviction is passed under S.14 (1) (b)."
31. In the instant case, though the respondent herein has admitted that he is only a tenant under the petitioner / landlord, by way of filing the suit in O.S.No.8524 of 2006 in the City Civil Court on 06.11.2006, he is disputing the jural relationship as landlord and tenant in the R.C.O.P. Having admitted the relationship in the suit, the respondent / tenant is estopped from disputing his jural relationship as tenant. The learned Rent Controller has given a detailed finding, based on evidence available on record that there is wilful default in payment of rent by the respondent / tenant, however, the Rent Control Appellate Authority has mechanically passed the conditional order, dated 19.06.2009, whereby granted interim stay till 15.07.2009. Though the conditional order was not complied with by the respondent / tenant, without considering the mandatory provisions of Section 10 (2) (i) of the Act and the proviso thereon, the miscellaneous petition has been posted on various dates and by order, dated 26.11.2009, the interim stay has been extended till 09.12.2009 against the factual and legal aspects.
32. In the aforesaid circumstances and also in the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, I am of the view that it is a clear abuse of process of Court by the respondent / tenant. After voluntarily stating himself as statutory tenant under the petitioner / landlord in the civil suit, the respondent / tenant cannot go round and say that there is no jural relationship as landlord and tenant, which is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. He cannot shift the burden on his earlier counsel. Having received the exgratia amount of Rs.50,000/-, by way of cheque from the petitioner / landlord, without paying the rent, the respondent / tenant cannot get extension of stay. The mechanical orders passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in the miscellaneous petition would show that the orders have been passed by the Appellate Authority by non-application of mind ignoring the mandatory provisions of the Act, detrimental to the rights of the petitioner / landlord.
33. So far as the Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is well settled that if it is to correct any error apparent or error on the face of the record or arithmetic error, the aggrieved party can filed a review petition in the same Court, which passed the order. If it is an appealable order, in a rent control matter, the aggrieved party can prefer only appeal under Section 23 of the said Act. If appeal provision is not available, aggrieved by an order of the appellate authority in a rent control matter, revision is maintainable in the High Court, under Section 25 of the Act. In such circumstances, revision under Section 115 CPC cannot be invoked, since there is a specific provision available in the Rent Control Act itself. However, a revision can be maintained only against a final order passed by the court below. In the instant case, there is no final order passed by the Court below under the Rent Control provisions, however, the Court below has granted stay by passing a conditional order. Even without compliance of the order, the stay was subsequently extended by the Court below and without proper reasons, the amount already fixed was reduced and posted on various dates and the interim stay was also mechanically extended by the court below. The tenant has also unreasonably disputed the jural relationship. In such circumstances, the only remedy available to an aggrieved party is to invoke the inherent superintending power of the High Court available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
34. The Hon'ble Supreme in India, in Ouseph Mathai vs. M.Abdul Khadir, reported in 2002 (I) SCC 319 has clearly held that mere wrong decision is not a ground for exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, however, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, where it is established that the lower court or the tribunal has been guilty of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power, which resulted in injustice to any party. In the instant case, the respondent herein has categorically stated that he was only a tenant under the petitioner in the suit filed by him before the City Civil Court in the year 2006, however, he has taken totally a contradictory stand in the rent control matter that there is no jural landlord tenant relationship and that his earlier counsel was responsible for the averments made in the plaint. Admittedly, the suit was also dismissed by the Civil Court. Hence, he is estopped from raising totally a contradictory stand against his admission by disputing the jural relationship, which has to be construed only as an abuse of process of the Court.
35. The Rent Control Appellate Authority, without considering the detailed order passed by the learned Rent Controller, has mechanically passed the conditional order, dated 19.06.2009. Though the conditional order was not complied with, without any justifiable reason, the Court below has mechanically adjourned the matter to various dates and also extended the interim stay against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
36. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / landlord, the respondent / tenant has not paid any rent even after receiving the cheque for the alleged exgratia amount of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioners / landlord in the year 2006. In spite of the huge arrears of rent, without considering the petition on the prima facie merit of the case, granting stay by the Rent Control Appellate Authority has granted stay and mechanically extended the stay order, which would be construed as flagrant abuse of power, resulted in injustice to the petitioner herein, as ruled by the Apex Court in 2002 (I) SCC 319 (cited supra) and therefore, I am of the view that it is a fit case in maintaining the Civil Revision Petition by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
37. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, I am of the view that the Civil Revision Petition has to be allowed.
38. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Court below is set aside. The Court below is directed to dispose the R.C.A.No.213 of 2009, according to law within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without seeking further extension of time, solely on merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as to costs.
28-04-2010 Index : Yes Internet : Yes tsvn To
1. The XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes Chennai.
2. The VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes Chennai.
S.TAMILVANAN, J tsvn Order in C.R.P (NPD) No.1151 of 2010 28-04-2010