A N MEHTA Vs. K THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent/tenant in R.C.O.P. No. 1599 of 2008 on the file of the XIII Small Cause Court, Chennai is the revision Petitioner. The Respondents herein filed RCOP for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction. When the case was listed for trial, the second Respondent herein namely, the second Petitioner in the RCOP gave authorization to one Srinivasan to examine as P. W. 1 and on that basis Srinivasan was examined as P.W.1 and the evidence of the Respondents herein namely, the Petitioners in R.C.O.P. No. 1599 of 2008 was also closed. Thereafter, the Respondents herein filed M.P. No. 680 of 2009 for reopening the case on their side for examining the second Respondent herein, who is also the second Petitioner in the RCOP as P.W.2 and that petition was allowed. Against the same, the revision Petitioner filed R.C.A. No. 136 of 2010 on the file of the VIII Court of Small Causes at Chennai and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is flied.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner submitted that the second Respondent herein having authorized P.W.1 to give evidence on his behalf is not entitled to examine himself at a later stage and having given the power to P.W.1 to give evidence, the second Petitioner cannot examine himself later and that is against the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 A of C.P.C and therefore, the Lower Court erred in allowing the application filed by the Respondents. The learned Counsel further submitted that it is open to the first Petitioner in the RCOP namely, the first Respondent herein to examine himself and the second Respondent herein who has authorized P.W.1 to give evidence on his behalf cannot examine himself at a later stage. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court in Bhanumathy v. M. Venkatesan, 1989 AIR(Mad) 239 wherein it was held that a person having given authorisation to a witness cannot examine himself at a later stage without reserving the right by getting proper permission from the Court and therefore, the petition for reopening is also not maintainable. The learned Counsel also relied upun the judgment in Dr. V.K. Muthusamy v. U.A. Habeen Firm by Partner U.A. Habeeh and Ors., 1995 AIR(Mad) 137 in support of his contention that before examining and party if a witness is examined without getting permission from the Court, the party cannot be examined later as it is against Order 18 Rule 3 A Code of Civil Procedure

(3.) According to me, the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the proceedings are pending before the Rent Control Court and therefore, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied strictly to the rent Control Proceedings. Further, it has been stated in the application that to give evidence regarding the means of the landlord, the second Respondent herein wants to examine himself as P.W.2. It is an admitted fact that in any application for eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, the landlord has to prove the means and that fact can be spoken to only by the landlord and it cannot be spoken to by third party. Considering all these facts, the lower Court has allowed the application permitting the second Respondent herein to examine himself as P.W.2. Further, the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner which were rendered under Order 18 Rule 3A C.P.C cannot be made applicable to rent Control proceedings as the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applied to Rent Control Proceedings.