EITHIRAJ Vs. K GOPALASWAMY CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ethiraj was the defendant in ejectment suit No. 306 of 1961 on the file of the court of Small Causes, Madras. He filed an application under S. 9 of the madras City Tenants Protection Act for directing the respondent (Plaintiff) to sell the suit site to him for a price to be fixed by the court. the learned Judge of the small Cause Court, who heard the case, decided it in his favour. But on appeal the chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, held that the petitioner had not proved that he had become a tenant before the amendment of the Act and that he was, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of the Act. The petitioner filed C. R. P. No. 2069 of 1963 in this court, and Alagiriswami J. allowed the civil revision petition and remanded the case to the trial court solely on the ground that, as an appeal lay against the order passed under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants protection, Act, the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 5, C. P. Code should be complied with and that evidence should have been recorded completely, instead of taking merely a memo of evidence. When the matter went back before the Fourth judge of the Court of Small Causes, Madras, he took evidence and again negatived the claim of the petitioner, and this order was confirmed by the Chief Judge, Court of small Causes.

(2.) THE petitioner has taken several grounds in this civil revision petition, but I find that the Fourth Judge of the Court of Small Causes has again failed to comply with order XVIII, Rule 5, C. P. Code. Though a specific ground has not been taken about non-compliance with the provisions contained in Order XVIII, Rule 5, C. P. Code, I can take notice of it, and, in the circumstances of the case. I am constrained once again to remand for over a decade.

(3.) IT is true, the evidence now recorded by the Fourth Judge of the Court of Small causes, gives the names and other details usually found in depositions recorded in a regular manner, but in other respects, it does not in any way differ from the memo of evidence recorded prior to the remand. The signatures of the witnesses have been taken, but there is nothing in the depositions to show that the evidence was read over to the witnesses in the presence of the Judge, and, in fact, the depositions have not been signed by the Judge. Order XVIII, Rule 5, C. P. C. reads as follows: