Madras High Court
S. Santhana Selvaraj vs Jaffar Khan And 2 Others on 24 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)CTC138
ORDER
1. The petitioner is the tenant. The respondents have been impleaded as parties to the R.C.A.No.153 of 1989. They purchased the building from the original owner, the landlord of the petitioner herein. After impleading, the respondents filed applications I.A.Nos.385 and 386 of 1996 to adduce additional evidence. The Appellate Authority has allowed those applications by order dated 2.1.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the revision has been filed by the petitioner herein.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contended with regard to the maintainability of the rent control appeal by the petitioners herein. I do not think, it is necessary at this stage, to go into the maintainability of the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority by the respondents herein.
3. Admittedly the respondents have been impleaded in the R.C.A.No.153 of 1989 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichy. Subsequent to that they filed applications I.A.Nos.385 and 386 of 1996 for adducing additional evidence. Even in respect of the rent control proceedings Civil Procedure Code is applicable as far as possible. When an application has been filed to adduce additional evidence by any of the parties to the proceedings at the appellate stage, it is the duty of the Court to take up the application for additional evidence along with the appeal and dispose of the same. Pending the appeal, it is not open to the Appellate Authority to take up the application for additional evidence independently as laid down in the judgments in the cases of M. Ayyaswamy v. S.P. Ganesan, 1994 (II) LW 376 and M. Shanmugasundaram v. N.T.P. Subburaya Chettiar, . In view of the above judgments, I am of the view that the order of the Appellate Authority is to be set asides and the I.A.No.385 and 386 of 1996 have to be remitted back to the Appellate Authority for disposal alongwith R.C.A.No.153 of 1989. On this short ground, the civil revision petition is allowed and I.A.Nos.385 and 386 of 1996 are restored on the file of the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal alongwith the main appeal No order is necessary in the CMP and the same is closed.
4. Though the revision relates to Application No.386 of 1996, the order being a common order, I am of the view that I.A.No.385 of 1996 can also be restored alongwith this I.A.No.386 of 1996 in the interest of justice. It is open to the parties to put forth their objections to the Appellate Authority.