M.PAULRAJ Vs. A.GANESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant against the dismissal of the R.C.A.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub-Judge), Nagercoil, dated 11.10.2013.

(2.) The respondent herein had filed R.C.O.P.No.3/2010 on the file of the Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif), Nagercoil for fixation of fair rent under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Rent Control Act), stating that the petition mentioned property measuring 21.41 cents in area was leased out by his adopted father Sri. S.V.A.Arumuga Nainar to the father of the petitioner herein in or about 1956. He further stated that the monthly rent for the said property is Rs.500/- and the said rent is very low and hence, a fair rent has to be fixed. The petitioner herein opposed the said petition by filing counter. He also stated that the respondent herein entered into a sale agreement with him agreeing to sell the entire 21.41 cents, but the respondent herein has not come forward to execute the sale deed and hence, he was constrained to file a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.173/2009 on the file of the District Judge at Nagercoil.

(3.) In the said R.C.O.P, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to value the building. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner had inspected the said property with the assistance of an Engineer and filed his report. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for enquiry. During enquiry, the respondent herein examined himself as P.W.1. It appears that the Advocate Commissioner and the Engineer, who assisted the Advocate Commissioner were examined as C.Ws.1 & 2. Thereafter, the matter was posted for respondent's side evidence. The petitioner herein has filed chief examination by way of proof affidavit as R.W.1 and when the matter was posted for his cross- examination, he has filed a petition in I.A.No.33 of 2013 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission of the learned Rent Controller to amend his counter statement as only 7 cents was leased out. The respondent herein has opposed the said petition by filing counter. The learned Rent Controller, after considering the rival submissions and materials placed before him, by the order dated 03.07.2013, has dismissed the said petition. However, he gave a liberty to the petitioner to prove his case through oral and documentary evidence and that will be considered at the time of disposing of the main R.C.O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has filed an appeal in R.C.A.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Sub Judge), Nagercoil. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, by the order dated 11.10.2013, has dismissed the said appeal with costs, and thereby confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant (petitioner herein) has filed the present civil revision petition.