Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: TIRUVANNAMALAI in P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002Matching Fragments
2. Pending the above R.C.O.Ps, the revision petitioners/tenants filed interim applications, viz., I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999 respectively, before the learned Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai, under Section 19 of the Act, to reject the said R.C.O. P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999, placing reliance on the order dated 1.9.1995 made in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 1994 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tiruvannamamali, which was subsequently confirmed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Tiruvannamalai by order dated 20.7.1998 in R.C.A.No.16 of 1995.
3. The learned Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai, by order even dated 13.6.2002 in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2001 in H.R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of 199 9 respectively, refused to reject the R.C.O.Ps. exercising the powers conferred under Section 19 of the Act. Hence, the above revisions.
4. Mrs.Chitra Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that even though the respondents claim that they are owners of the petition premises, the execution of the lease deed dated 09.12.1968, which was relied upon by the landlord/petitioner in R.C.O.P. No.15 of 1 994 and R.C.A.No.16 of 1995, wherein it was concluded by the learned Rent Controller as well as by the Appellate Authority in the orders dated 1.9.1995 and 20.7.1998 respectively that what was leased out under the lease deed dated 09.12.1968 was only a vacant land but not building had become final in the earlier proceedings and the same is not disputed, and therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai ought to have rejected the R.C.O.P.s.9 and 10 of 1999 summarily.
(ii) the respondents/landlords are not even parties to the earlier proceedings, namely R.C.O.P.No.15 of 1994 on the file Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai.
(iii) the respondents/landlords in the R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai, have initiated the eviction proceedings against the revision petitioners/ tenants with respect to a totally different premises, which was not the subject matter in the order dated 1.9.1995 made in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 199 4 before the learned Rent Controller, as confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by order dated 20.7.1998 in R.C.A.No.16 of 1995 ; and
(iv) the respondents/landlords, who have filed R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai have initiated eviction proceedings based on a family partition, which issue was neither raised in the earlier proceedings nor dealt with therein, nor finally decided after a former adjudication, as contemplated by well settled principles, after full hearing.
9. For all these reasons, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the orders even dated 13.6.2002 in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999 respectively, of the learned Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai, to hold that he has failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred under Section 19 of the Act. The above revisions fail and are therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.1 3612 and 13613 of 2002 are also dismissed.