Madras High Court
Narayan Das Gupta vs Hari Balaji on 6 April, 2023
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
C.R.P.No.321 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 21.06.2023 Delivered on 11.03.2024
CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
C.R.P.No.321 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.2795 of 2021
Narayan Das Gupta ... Petitioner/Respondent
-Vs-
Hari Balaji ... Respondent/Petitioner
Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to
strike off the Petition R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 filed under Section
21(2)(g) read with Section 22 of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and
Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, on the file of the
learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.N.Nataraaj
For Respondent : Mr.R.Aranganathan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Respondent in R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 on the file of the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, seeking to strike off the said Petition.
2.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the Respondent in this Civil Revision Petition is the Petitioner/landlord in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner further submitted that R.C.O.P.No.1585 of 2017 was filed by the mother of the landlord against the Revision Petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for the relief of eviction of the tenant from the leased out property on the ground of demolition and re-construction. R.C.O.P.No.738 of 2018 was filed by the landlord/Respondent herein under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, for the relief of fixation of fair rent of the leased out premises. While so, pending the two Rent Control Original Petitions on the file of the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the landlord/Respondent herein had filed R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 before the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, under the new enactment viz., the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. As per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, any proceeding under the old Act, if filed and pending, had to be withdrawn or the same had to be continued, and a Petition under the new Act cannot be filed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 during the pendency of the Petition filed under the old Act. In this case, R.C.O.P.No.1585 of 2017 was filed by the mother of the landlord against the tenant/Revision Petitioner in this Revision Petition and R.C.O.P.No.738 of 2018 was filed by the landlord/Respondent herein against the tenant/Revision Petitioner herein. The Revision Petitioner is the Respondent in R.C.O.P.No.1585 of 2017 and R.C.O.P.No.738 of 2018, before the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. While so, a Petition under Section 21 read with Section 22 of the new enactment viz., the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, cannot be filed and the same is not maintainable.
3.The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, which reads as follows:-
“47. Repeal and savings.- (1) The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960) is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal and subject to the provisions of this Act, all cases and other proceedings under the said Act pending, at the commencement of this Act, shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 the provisions of the said Act, as if the said Act had continued in force and this Act had not been passed:
Provided that the plaintiff within a period of 180 days of coming into force of this Act shall be entitled to withdraw any suit or appeal or any other proceeding pending under the repealed Act with liberty to file fresh application in respect of the subject matter of such suit or appeal or any other proceeding under and in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and for the purposes of limitation, such application if it is filed within a period of 270 days from the commencement of this Act be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the suit which was withdrawn and in case of withdrawal of appeal or other proceedings on the date on which the suit was filed out of which such appeal or proceeding originated.”
4.Also, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 5 of the order passed by the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, in R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 filed by the Respondent, which reads as follows:-
“5.Matters not previously filed or pending with any other Court:
The Applicant further declares that he/she had previously filed any Application, Petition, Writ Petition or suit regarding the matter in respect of which grounds this Application has been made, before any Court or any other authority or any other Bench of the Tribunal nor any such Application, Writ Petition or suit is pending before any of them.”
5.The learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the earlier Petition in R.C.O.P.No.1585 of 2017 filed by the mother of the landlord/Respondent herein is for the relief of eviction of the tenant on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 ground of demolition and re-construction. R.C.O.P.No.738 of 2018 filed by the landlord/Respondent herein is for the relief of fixation of fair rent. While so, R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 had also been filed by the landlord under the new enactment viz., the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, for the relief of eviction of the tenant on the ground of owners use and occupation. Therefore, the tenant, who is the Respondent in R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 had preferred this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to strike off the Petition in R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 filed under Section 21(2)(g) read with Section 22 of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, pending on the file of the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is not maintainable. The petition in RLTOP No.64 of 2019 is maintainable.
Point for consideration:
Whether the Petition filed by the Respondent in this Civil Revision Petition as Petitioner in R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai is maintainable as per Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017?
6. On perusal of R.C.O.P.No.738 of 2018 filed by the Respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 herein as Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.738 of 2018 under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 and pending before the XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, for fixation of fair rent. Pending the said Rent Control Original Petition, the same Petitioner the Respondent herein had also filed R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of demolition and re-construction.
7. On perusal of R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 it is found that under Form-IV, Column No.5 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, before the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, where there is an undertaking of the Petitioner as follows:
“5.Matters not previously filed or pending with any other Court:
The Applicant further declares that he/she had previously filed any Application, Petition, Writ Petition or suit regarding the matter in respect of which grounds this Application has been made, before any Court or any other authority or any other Bench of the Tribunal nor any such Application, Writ Petition or suit is pending before any of them.”
8. During arguments, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner the Respondent before the learned XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 before the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes had pointed out that the Petitioner in RLTOP No.64 of 2019 had given false undertaking before the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai stating that there is no cases pending either before the learned Rent Controller or any other proceedings connected with the same property in RLTOP No.64 of 2019, as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. This is found objectionable, unacceptable, condemnable and unfair before a court of law.
9.When the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner made his submissions, the learned Counsel for the Respondent had by way of reply only pointed out the order passed by the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in RLTOP No.64 of 2019 which reads as under:
“Docket Order 27.01.2021 Respondent Counsel present. Petitioner Counsel Respondent Counsel present and submitted that he is not ready for cross examination since the Petition is barred by Section 47 of the Act. The submission of the Respondent would be that since the Petitioner initiated the proceeding under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act before the XIII SCC in RCOP No.1585 of 2017 and RCOP No.738 of 2018. The Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, two proceedings are initiated for demolition and reconstruction and fixation of fair rent.
Whereas this case was filed for own use and occupation. Since the both prayers are different this case is not barred under Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 47(2) of the Act. The objection made by the Respondent Counsel is overruled at this stage and he can raise this objection at the time of disposal of main OP. Respondent Counsel not ready for cross examination. Hence this Court closed the evidence of PW1. Petitioner Counsel reported no further evidence. Respondent side witness evidence affidavit by 10.02.2021.”
10.The said submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is found unacceptable, as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of the Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. In the new enactment, it is clearly stated that any proceedings as per the earlier Act [Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960] are pending before any Court of law either as RCOP or appeal or Writ Petition or Civil Revision Petition, then those proceedings had to be withdrawn only then petition under RLTOP has to be filed. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent by way of reply to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner is found unacceptable in the specific provision under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of the Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017. Further, the provisions under Form IV under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of the Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017 is not an empty formality. It has some sanctity as the undertaking given by the litigant before the Court of law as a sworn https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 affidavit before a judicial forum. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondent is rejected. It is found to be an abuse of process of Court attracting the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the light of the above submission and in the light of above discussion and in the light of the provisions under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of the Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, the R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 filed by the very same Petitioner who is the Petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.738 of 2018 is not at all maintainable.
11.In an earlier order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.445 of 2023 dated 06.04.2023 (M/s.Top Kapi, Rep. by its Partners Mr. S. Jayachandran & Mr. S. Murali -vs- S.Sarath Babu) this Court had set aside the order passed by the learned XVI Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai in R.L.T.O.P.No.91 of 2019 in which the Respondent therein raised the same issue which was ignored by the learned Judge who had disposed of the RLTOP favouring the landlord. The Respondent in RLTOP No.91 of 2019 who is the tenant had raised RLTA No.104 of 2022 before the learned XXII Additional Judge, City Civil Court at Allikulam, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 Chennai [Rent Tribunal, Chennai] where the Appellate Authority also ignored the valuable point raised by the tenant and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the tenant had approached this Court by filing C.R.P.No.445 of 2023. This Court after hearing both parties had allowed the said Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order of the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of the Landlord and Tenants Act, 2017 wherein also the landlord has filed RCOP as per the previous enactment. When that was pending, RLTOP No.91 of 2019 was filed. Therefore, the order in RLTOP No.91 of 2019 which was confirmed in RLTA No.104 of 2022 was set aside in the Civil Revision Petition. Aggrieved by the same the landlord approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.50978 of 2023 which was dismissed.
12.In the light of the above discussion, the point for consideration is answered in favour of the Revision Petitioner/Tenant and against the Respondent/Landlord.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. R.L.T.O.P.No.64 of 2019 pending on the file of the learned XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, is struck off from the file. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
11.03.2024 cda/srm Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes/No To
1.The XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2.The XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J., cda/srm https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/12 C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 Order made in C.R.P.No.321 of 2021 (2/2) 11.03.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/12