- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S. Santhana Selvaraj Petitioner v. Jaffar Khan And 2 Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner is the tenant. The respondents, who purchased the building from the original owner (the petitioner's landlord), were impleaded as parties in R.C.A. No. 153 of 1989 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Trichy. After impleading, the respondents filed I.A. Nos. 385 and 386 of 1996 seeking to adduce additional evidence. The Appellate Authority allowed those applications by an order dated 2.1.1997. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, when an application to adduce additional evidence is filed at the appellate stage, the Appellate Authority may take up and decide that application independently while the appeal is pending, or whether the application must be taken up and disposed of together with the appeal.
- Maintainability of the rent control appeal by the respondents — raised by the petitioner's counsel but not decided by the court at this stage.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Counsel for the petitioner contested the maintainability of the rent control appeal by the respondents. The opinion records this contention but states it is unnecessary to decide that issue at the present stage.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| M. Ayyaswamy v. S.P. Ganesan, 1994 (II) LW 376 | That when an application to adduce additional evidence is filed at the appellate stage, the court must take up and dispose of that application along with the appeal; the appellate authority should not decide the application independently while the appeal is pending. | The court relied on this authority to conclude that the Appellate Authority's independent decision on I.A. Nos. 385 and 386 was improper and therefore set that order aside and remitted the applications to be disposed of along with R.C.A. No. 153 of 1989. |
| M. Shanmugasundaram v. N.T.P. Subburaya Chettiar, 1998 (I) CTC 483; 1998 (1) M.L.J. 626 | Same principle as above regarding the procedure for applications to admit additional evidence at the appellate stage and the requirement to decide them together with the appeal. | The court applied this precedent alongside M. Ayyaswamy to support setting aside the Appellate Authority's order and remitting I.A. Nos. 385 and 386 for disposal with the main appeal. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that, as far as possible, the Civil Procedure Code is applicable to rent control proceedings. It reasoned that when a party files an application at the appellate stage to adduce additional evidence, it is the duty of the appellate court to take up that application together with the appeal and dispose of it; the application cannot be taken up and decided independently while the appeal is pending. The court relied on earlier decisions (M. Ayyaswamy and M. Shanmugasundaram) that established this procedural rule. Applying those authorities, the court concluded that the Appellate Authority erred in independently allowing I.A. Nos. 385 and 386 of 1996 and therefore set aside that order. The proper course, the court held, was to remit those interlocutory applications back to the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal along with R.C.A. No. 153 of 1989.
The court also noted the petitioner's contention on maintainability but expressly stated that it was unnecessary to decide that issue at the present stage.
Holding and Implications
The civil revision petition is allowed; I.A. Nos. 385 and 386 of 1996 are set aside and restored on the file of the Appellate Authority for fresh disposal along with R.C.A. No. 153 of 1989.
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The Appellate Authority's order dated 2.1.1997 allowing I.A. Nos. 385 and 386 is set aside.
- I.A. Nos. 385 and 386 of 1996 are remitted to the Appellate Authority to be heard and decided together with the main appeal (R.C.A. No. 153 of 1989).
- Although the revision specifically related to I.A. No. 386 of 1996, because the order was common, I.A. No. 385 of 1996 was also restored in the interest of justice.
- Parties are permitted to place their objections before the Appellate Authority when the applications are reheard.
The opinion does not set out broader legal consequences beyond the direct effect on these interlocutory applications and does not purport to lay down a new rule of law; it applies established precedents addressing the proper procedure for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage.
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, 1998 (I) CTC 483: 1998 (1) M.L.J 626. 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.
Alert