Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

2816 of 2003

Advocates

S.Sounthar
R.T.Shyamala

Judges

Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

Acts

Rent Control) Act, 1960, Fourth Revised Edition, 1998,
Section 10(2)(1) & (7) and Section 14(1)(b)
Rent Control) Act 1960,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Revision against order in I.A. No. 11/2003 in R.C.O.P. No. 4/2002)

Factual and Procedural Background

The revision challenges an order of the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Sirkali dated 3.9.2003, which dismissed I.A. No. 11/2003 in R.C.O.P. No. 4/2002. In R.C.O.P. No. 4/2002 the petitioner (landlady) sought eviction of the revision petitioners (tenants) on grounds including wilful default (section 10(2)(1) & (7)) and requirement of premises for demolition and reconstruction (section 14(1)(b)). The tenants denied tenancy and claimed possession pursuant to an Agreement of Sale dated 15.12.1999; they filed O.S. No. 49/2001 in the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai for specific performance of that agreement. The tenants contended they were in possession under the Agreement of Sale and so the Rent Control petition was not maintainable. The landlady pleaded that the Agreement of Sale was forged and maintained that the occupants were tenants who defaulted in rent, leading to the RCOP.

The tenants moved I.A. No. 11/2003 under Section 151 CPC seeking a six-month stay of the RCOP pending disposal of O.S. No. 49/2001 on the ground that both proceedings involved the same parties and the same property. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, noting (among other things) that the six-month period sought had already lapsed. This revision seeks to set aside that dismissal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is applicable to the Rent Control proceedings and whether RCOP No. 4/2002 ought to be stayed until the disposal of O.S. No. 49/2001.
Whether the impugned order declining to stay RCOP No. 4/2002 suffers from any infirmity warranting interference.

Arguments of the Parties

Revision Petitioners' (Tenants') Arguments

The subject matter and parties in O.S. No. 49/2001 and RCOP No. 4/2002 are the same; therefore the Rent Control proceedings should be stayed until the specific performance suit is decided.
There is no provision specifically staying Rent Control proceedings; hence the tenants invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 151 CPC to obtain the stay.
The tenants asserted they were in possession of the premises pursuant to the Agreement of Sale and that the outcome of O.S. No. 49/2001 would bear upon the RCOP.

Petitioner / Landlady's Arguments

The Agreement of Sale alleged by the tenants is a forged document; consequently the specific performance suit is founded on a forged document and should not prevent the RCOP from proceeding.
Section 10 CPC is not applicable to Rent Control proceedings because the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court and the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 is a self-contained code; therefore the CPC does not generally apply.
The scope of inquiry in a Rent Control proceeding is limited and summary in nature, whereas a suit for specific performance requires elaborate evidence; therefore the RCOP should not be stayed pending O.S. No. 49/2001.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
1999 (1) MLJ 101 (V. Kanagaraj, J.)	Held that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 is self-contained; Rent Controller and Appellate Authority are not Courts and proceedings under the Act are not governed by the CPC.	The court relied on this authority to support the position that CPC is not generally applicable to Rent Control proceedings and to reinforce that the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court for purposes of invoking CPC provisions such as Section 10.
Abdul Kader v. A.K. Murthy (1947) 2 MLJ 482	Observed that provisions of the CPC were not made available to proceedings under the Act in the absence of rules, though the principles of CPC might be applied.	The court cited this line of authority (as quoted in a text) to show historical judicial treatment indicating the CPC was not intended to be generally applicable to the Rent Control Act proceedings.
Devichand Moolchand v. Dhanraj Kantilal (1948) 1 MLJ 276	Referenced in context to show the distinction between applying principles of CPC and making the CPC itself applicable to Act proceedings.	Used as part of the chain of authority establishing that the Rent Control Act proceedings are self-contained and the CPC is not generally applicable.
Fernandes v. Ranganayakulu Chetty (1952) 2 MLJ 445	Indicated that the provisions of the CPC were not intended to be generally applicable to proceedings under the Rent Control Act.	The court relied on this authority to reinforce the conclusion that specific CPC provisions (including Section 10) cannot be invoked as of right in Rent Control proceedings.
1973 TLNJ 228 (Subramaniam Chettiar v. Pillaiyarpatti Karpagavinayagar Nagarathar Trust)	Held that in the interest of justice inherent powers under Section 151 CPC could be invoked before the Appellate Tribunal and the Rent Controller; Or.6 R.17 was held applicable to correct an inadvertent mistake.	The court considered this decision but distinguished it: it held the ratio in that case could not be applied to the present facts because here there is a specific provision under Section 10 CPC and the CPC is not generally applicable to Rent Control proceedings; therefore the tenants could not invoke inherent powers under Section 151 CPC in the present circumstances.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in a stepwise manner:

Applicability of CPC and Character of the Rent Controller: The court examined the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 and observed there is no provision making the CPC generally applicable to proceedings under the Act. On the basis of statutory language and supportive judicial authority (including 1999 (1) MLJ 101), the court treated the Act as self-contained and held that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority are not Civil Courts for CPC purposes.
Permissibility of invoking Section 10 CPC or inherent powers: Given that the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court, the court held Section 10 CPC (which deals with stay of proceedings when another suit is pending between the same parties for the same cause of action) could not be invoked before the Rent Controller. The petitioners attempted to avoid this difficulty by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC; the court rejected that approach because where a specific statutory provision (Section 10 CPC) exists for Civil Courts, and the CPC is not generally applicable to Rent Control proceedings, it is not open to the revision petitioners to invoke Section 151 CPC in the Rent Control forum in the manner attempted.
Sequence and context of filings: The court reviewed the procedural history and rejected the contention that RCOP No. 4/2002 was a counter-blast to O.S. No. 49/2001. It noted earlier communications and suits (including O.S. No. 236/2000) and concluded the contention of improper sequencing had no merit.
Comparison of subject-matter and scope of inquiry: Even assuming, arguendo, that Section 10 CPC could be entertained, the court compared the issues in the specific performance suit and the rent control petition. The specific performance suit raises substantial contested issues (authenticity of the Agreement of Sale, readiness and willingness to perform, alleged part performance, existence of documentary proof of possession) which would require elaborate evidence. By contrast, rent control proceedings are summary in nature with a limited scope (primarily to determine wilful default and requirement for demolition/reconstruction).
Conclusion on identity of subject-matter: The court concluded that except for the parties and the demised property, the essential conditions of Section 10 CPC were not attracted because the subject matter and issues in the two proceedings were different. A decree in the specific performance suit would not automatically oust the landlady's rights in the rent control proceeding or non-suit her in that forum.
Outcome on the impugned order: For these reasons, the court found no infirmity in the Rent Controller's decision to dismiss I.A. No. 11/2003 and decline a stay of the RCOP. The Rent Controller's characterization of the proceedings as distinct was affirmed.

Holding and Implications

The revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order of the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Sirkali dated 3.9.2003 dismissing I.A. No. 11/2003 in R.C.O.P. No. 4/2002 is confirmed.

Direct consequences and practical implications for the parties:

RCOP No. 4/2002 will proceed; the stay sought by the tenants is refused.
CMP No. 21320 of 2003 is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
The Rent Controller/District Munsif, Sirkazhi is directed to expedite the enquiry and dispose of RCOP No. 4/2002 expeditiously.

Broader legal implication: The court reiterated that the Rent Control Act is self-contained and that the CPC is not generally applicable to proceedings under that Act; where the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court, Section 10 CPC cannot be invoked before it and invocation of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC is inappropriate in the circumstances at hand. The opinion confines itself to the facts and record of this case and does not purport to announce any broader novel precedent beyond these conclusions.

Show full summary ...

Arumugam v. Seethalakshmi Others

1.This revision is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Sirkali, dated 3.9.2003, made in I.A. No. 11/2003 in R.C.O.P. No. 4/2002 dismissing the application filed under section 151 CPC declining to stay the proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 4/2002, till the disposal of O.S. No. 49/2001, Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai. The Respondents/Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.

2.The relevant facts are :-

2. R.C.O.P. No. 4/2002 :-

Petition mentioned House Property is situate at D. No. 21, South Car Street, Vaitheeswaran Koil, Sirkazhi. The Revision Petitioners have become tenants under the Respondents. Originally, the monthly rent payable was Rs. 300/- which was later increased to Rs. 400/-. The Respondents have not regularly paid the rent. When notice was issued seeking for payment of rent, the Respondents have set forth a false claim. Hence the Rent Control petition was filed for eviction, under section 10(2)(1) & (7) and section 14(1)(b) on the ground of wilful default and demolition and reconstruction. For convenience, parties are referred to in their rank in RCOP No.4/2002.

3. Denying that they are tenants under the Petitioner/ landlady and denying the tenancy, the Respondents have filed the counter statement. The Respondents have claimed that Petitioner/Land Lady had executed an Agreement of Sale on 15.12.1999. For the enforcement of that contract, the Respondents have filed O.S. No. 49/2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai for specific performance of contract. Since the Respondents are in possession of the petition mentioned premises pursuant to the Agreement of Sale, the Petitioner/landlady cannot seek to evict the Respondents by filing Rent Control Application.

4. O.S. No. 49/2001 :-

The Respondents 2 and 3 have filed O.S. No. 49/2001 for Specific Performance. According to them, the Petitioner /landlady has entered into an agreement of sale with the Respondents, agreeing to sell the property for a consideration of Rs. 3,25,000/- and she had executed the Sale Agreement in favour of the Plaintiff. Further case of the Respondents is that the Respondents have paid Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 75,000/- and the balance is only Rs. 2,00,000/-. In spite of several request, the Petitioner/ landlady has not executed the Sale Deed. Hence the suit has been filed for specific performance directing the landlady to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Respondents.

5. The Petitioner/landlady has opposed the suit contending that the Agreement of Sale, dated 15.12.1999 is a forged one and that the suit being based on the forged document, Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief. According to the landlady, the Revision Petitioners and their mother came to the suit property as Tenants and they have been paying rent. Since the tenants have committed default in paying the rent, the Rent Control proceedings has been initiated for eviction.

6. I.A. No. 11/2003 -

Under Section 151 CPC :-

This application has been filed to stay the Rent Control proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 4/2002 for a period of six months. It has been stated that O.S. No. 49/2001 has been filed by the Respondents 2 and 3 for specific performance of contract regarding the suit property. It is averred that since the parties and the subject matter in issue are one and the same, the decision in O.S. No. 49/2001 would have bearing upon the rent control proceedings and hence prayed to stay the rent control proceedings.

7. Resisting the application, the Petitioner/Landlady has filed the counter statement contending that the suit O.S. No. 49/2001 is not a bar to proceed with the RCOP. The issue in O.S. No. 49/2001 is an entirely different issue and hence Section 10 CPC is not applicable.

8. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, the Rent Controller/learned District Munsif, Sirkazhi has dismissed the application. In the application, stay has been sought for only for a period of six months. The impugned order was passed on 3.9.2003. Pointing out that six months time prayed for has already lapsed, the learned District Munsif declined to stay the Rent Control proceedings.

9. The learned counsel has contended that subject matter in both the cases are one and the same and that the proceedings in RCOP cannot be proceeded with till the suit for specific performance is determined. It is his contention that in the absence of provision for staying the Rent Control Proceedings, the application has been filed under section 151 CPC invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Submitting that invoking the inherent powers of the Court, the learned Rent Controller ought to have stayed the proceedings, the learned counsel urged for setting aside the impugned order.

10. Drawing the attention of the Court to the Written Statement in O.S. No. 49/2001, the learned counsel for the Petitioner/Landlady has submitted that in O.S. No. 49/2001, the Petitioner has set forth the plea that the alleged Agreement of Sale is a forged document. It is the further contention that Section 10 CPC is not applicable to the Rent Control proceedings. It is also submitted that the scope of enquiry in Rent Control Petition is limited; whereas the scope of trial in O.S. No. 49/2001 is enlarged and that the Rent Control Proceedings cannot be stayed till the disposal of specific performance suit in O.S. No. 49/2001.

11. Upon consideration of the contentions of both parties, impugned order and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Revision -

(i) Whether Sec. 10 is applicable to the Rent Control Proceedings and whether RCOP is to be stayed till the disposal of the case;

and;

(ii) Whether the impugned order declining to stay the RCOP No. 4/2002 suffers from any infirmity warranting interference ?

12. Even at the outset, the differential stand adopted by the Respondents/Tenants are to be pointed out. Prior to the filing of Rent Control Petition, the Petitioner/Landlady has issued a legal notice on 2.9.2000. Respondents have sent reply (dated 31.10.2000) denying their tenancy and alleging that they are in possession of the suit property pursuant to the Agreement of Sale. Since the status of tenancy is disputed, the Petitioner/Landlady has filed O.S. No. 236/2000, before the District Munsif, Mayladuthurai. In the said suit, the Respondents/Tenants have raised objection as to the maintainability of the suit and only the Rent control proceeding ought to have been filed. To avoid such technical objections, the Petitioner/Landlady has filed the RCOP No. 4/2002. RCOP No.4/2002 was filed on 20.2.2002.

13. In the rent control proceedings, Respondents/Tenants have adopted the same defence that they are in possession of the petition mentioned premises pursuant to the Agreement of Sale. After exchange of notice, the Petitioner/Landlady has filed O.S. No. 236/2000. Only thereafter, O.S. No. 49/2001 was filed on 14.2.2001. The contention of the Revision Petitioners that Rent Control Petition was filed subsequently as a counter blast to O.S. No. 49/2001, has no merits.

14. Section 10 CPC deals with stay of proceedings in the suit. Contention of the Petitioner/landlady is that Sec. 10 CPC is not applicable to the rent control proceedings since the Rent Controller is not a Court. It is also the contention that since the provisions of Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to the Rent Control proceedings, inherent powers of the Court also cannot be invoked. It is the contention of the Respondents/Defendants that in the absence of specific provision, inherent powers of the Court could be invoked. In the light of the contentious points, the question arising for consideration is - Whether Rent Controller is functioning as a Civil Court and whether the inherent powers under section 151 cpc or sec. 10 cpc could be invoked by the Respondents/Tenants ?

15. There is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960, or in the Rules for any of the provisions of the CPC being made applicable to the actions and proceedings under the Act. On the other hand, the provision in the Act clearly indicate that the Code of Civil Procedure was not intended to be generally applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that the CPC as such will not apply to the proceedings before the authorities constituted under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act 1960. Elaborately considering this aspect, in 1999 (1) MLJ 101, V.Kanagaraj, J. has held that the Act is a self contained Act and that the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority are not Courts and the proceedings are not governed by the CPC. The learned Judge has quoted the passage from V.N. Krishnamurthi's Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, Fourth Revised Edition, 1998, at page No.182. We may also usefully refer to the same :

"Applicability of Civil Procedure Code: In Abdul Kader V. A.K. Murthy (1947)2 MLJ 482, it was pointed out that the provisions of C.P.C. were not made available to proceedings under the Act in the absence of rules nevertheless the principles of the same should be applied Devichand Moolchand V. Dhanraj Kantilal ( 1948) 1 MLJ 276 at 279. The Act itself does not contain any provision regarding the application of Civil Procedure Code and in fact the provisions of the Act seem to be self-contained in regard to procedure and the Act has gone to the extent of providing for bringing in the Legal Representatives on record and costs, to mention two instances. If really the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable mutatis mutandis to the procedure under the Act, the provisions are wholly superfluous. On the other hand, they clearly indicate that the Code of Civil Procedure was not intended to be generally applicable to the proceedings under the Act Fernandes Vs. Ranganayakulu Chetty ( 1952)2 MLJ 445 at 446."

16. When the trial Court or the Appellate Authority is not a Civil Court, the provisions of section 10 cpc cannot be invoked. Even at the outset, the petition filed to stay the proceedings in RCOP No.4/2002 is not maintainable. Perhaps avoid such controversy, petition was filed under section 151 CPC. When the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority is not a Civil Court, the inherent jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked. In support of his contention that inherent powers of Court could be invoked, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has relied upon the Judgment reported in 1973 TLNJ 228 (Subramaniam Chettiar Vs. Pillaiyarpatti karpagavinayagar Nagarathar Trust) wherein it was held that in the interest of justice, inherent powers under Section 151 CPC could be invoked before the Appellate Tribunal and the Rent Controller. In the said decision, Or.6 R.17 was held applicable to correct an inadvertent mistake wherein it was held that the duty of the Court is to advance substantial justice and allowed a correction of a mistake in bringing the new trustees in the place of old trustees. The same ratio cannot be applied to the case in hand where there is specific provision under Section 10 CPC. When the specific provision under section 10 CPC is available and when the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code is not generally applicable to the proceedings before the Rent Controller and the Appellate Tribunal, it is not open to the Revision Petitioner to invoke the inherent powers of the Court.

17. Assuming for the sake of arguments that Sec. 10 CPC petition filed is maintainable, the main point for consideration is whether the proceeding in the RCOP No.4/2002 is to be stayed till the disposal of O.S. No. 49/ 2001. The contention of the Revision Petitioners is that the Petitioner/Landlady has entered into an agreement of sale on 15.12.1999 for a consideration of Rs. 3,25,000/- out of which, an advance of Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 75,000/- has already been paid and that only a balance of Rs. 2,00,000/- is to be paid and the landlady is evading to perform her part of the contract. It is the further case of the Revision Petitioners/Tenants that they are in possession of the demised property pursuant to the Agreement of Sale and in particular, the performance of contract. Curiously, this plea has not been set forth in O.S. No. 49/2001. Neither part performance is alleged in plaint; nor the Revision Petitioners have produced house tax receipts or other documents evidencing their possession. The landlady has denied any such Agreement of Sale and set forth the defence that the alleged Agreement of Sale is forged one. In the light of the pleadings in the suit, the main issues that may have to be adjudicated upon are :-

(i)Whether the said Agreement of Sale dated 15.12.1989 is true and genuine (ii)Whether the Plaintiffs/Revision Petitioners were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract ?

(iii)Whether the landlady is bound to execute the Sale Deed ?

To adjudicate upon the issues, the parties may have to adduce elaborate evidence in support of their plea.

18. Per contra, the scope of enquiry in the Rent Control proceedings is summary in nature. Elaborate recording of evidence is not necessary. It is sufficient that if the Rent Controller makes an enquiry for determining :-

(i) Whether there had been wilful default ?

(ii) Whether the premises is required for demolition and reconstruction ?

In the light of the above contentious points involved in the Rent Control Proceedings, the scope of enquiry is very limited.

19.Thus by a careful analysis of the pleadings and the contentious points involved, the subject matter in the suit and in the rent control proceedings are not one and the same; nor does the decree in specific performance suit would non-suit the Petitioner/landlady in the rent control proceedings. Excepting that the parties and the demised property are the same, no other essential conditions of Section 10 CPC is attracted. Since the subject matter in both the suit and the rent control proceedings are entirely different, rent control proceedings instituted for eviction of the Tenants/Revision Petitioners cannot be stayed.

20.The learned District Munsif/Rent Controller has rightly found that both the proceedings are different. Excepting that the parties and demised property are the same, no other common points are involved for determination. No valid grounds are made out for staying the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or material irregularity warranting interference.

21.The fair and decretal order of the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Sirkali made in I.A. No. 11/2003 in R.C.O.P. No. 4/2002, is confirmed and this Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, CMP No.21320 of 2003 is also dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.

22. The Rent Controller/District Munsif, Sirkazhi is directed to expedite the enquiry in RCOP No.4/2002 and dispose of the same expeditiously.

Arumugam v. Seethalakshmi Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Revision against order in I.A. No. 11/2003 in R.C.O.P. No. 4/2002)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Revision Petitioners' (Tenants') Arguments

Petitioner / Landlady's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Arumugam v. Seethalakshmi Others

Comments