D B KINGSLEY Vs. SHOBA VISWANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.No.2848 of 2000 has been filed by the tenant, against the judgment dated 6.6.2000, and made in R.C.A.No.899 of 1993, on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the order and decretal order dated 30.6.1993 and made in R.C.O.P.No.2788 of 1990 on the file of the XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras ordering eviction, on the ground of wilful default. C.R.P.Nos.2840, 2849 and 2850 of 2000 have been filed by the tenant against the common order, dated 6.6.2000, passed by the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, dismissing M.P.Nos.131, 130 and 69 of 1999, in R.C.A.No.899 of 1993, filed for receipt of additional grounds, additional documents and additional evidence, respectively.

(2.) WITH the consent of both sides, these civil revision petitions are taken up for the final disposal.

(3.) IN view of the said position, this Court called for particulars with regard to the suits filed by the respondent herein against the revision petitioner, in connection with the demised property. A report was submitted to the effect that the revision petitioner herein, as petitioner/ plaintiff filed Application No.2954 of 1984, on 18.3.1982, in C.S.No,239 of 1982, on the file of the High Court of Judicature, Madras, for withdrawal of the suit in O.S.No.1765 of 1982 from the file of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras and to try the same jointly with C.S.No.239 of 1982 and the same was ordered on 25.9.1986. The abovesaid suit was withdrawn from the City Civil Court, Madras and renumbered as Tr.C.S.No.625 of 1986 on the file of the High Court of Judicature, Madras. The said suit has been filed for ejectment of the revision petitioner from the demised premises, by the respondent herein. It is also seen from the report submitted by the Registry that the respondent herein, as plaintiff, has also filed a suit against the revision petitioner, as defendant, in O.S.No.9532 of 1984 on 14.12.1984, for recovery of a sum of Rs.88,000 and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,500 per month, with effect from 1.11.1984, till he vacates and delivers vacant possession of the demised property. An application in A.No.249 of 1986 was again filed in C.S.No.239 of 1982 by the revision petitioner herein and the same was also ordered to be tried jointly with C.S.No.239 of 1982, by order dated 25.9.1986. The suit in O.S.No.9532 of 1984 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras was withdrawn to the file of the High Court of Judicature, Madras and renumbered as Tr.C.S.No.623 of 1986 on the file of the High Court, Madras. Even though the abovesaid two suits were ordered to be tried jointly with C.S.No.239 of 1982, the suit in C.S.No.239 of 1982 alone was taken up by a learned single Judge of this Court and decreed for the relief of specific performance of contract of sale in that suit and dismissed with regard to the relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the house and premises described in the rent control petition as preposterous. It has also been directed in the abovesaid judgment dated 8.9.1992 in C.S.No.239 of 1982 that the revision petitioner/ plaintiff, if continues to be in possession of the demised property, will have to pay either rent or damages for use and occupation of the demised premises to the defendant/ respondent herein, till his possession becomes that of the owner of the property. It is under the said circumstances, the suit in O.S.No.1765 of 1982, which was transferred from the City Civil Court, Madras, to the file of this Court and renumbered as Tr.C.S.No.625 of 1986 was retransferred by this Registry to the City Civil Court, Madras and renumbered as O.S.No.3621 of 1996 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. Again it was retransferred from the City Civil Court, Madras to this High Court and renumbered as Tr.C.S.No.625 of 1986 and the same is still pending on the file of this Court. The suit in O.S.No.9532 of 1984, withdrawn from the City Civil Court, Madras and renumbered as Tr.C.S.No.623 of 1986, on the file of the High Court, Madras is still pending before the High Court, as seen from the report received from the Registry.