CHINNARAJU NAIDU Vs. BAVANI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-tenant in H. R. C O. P. No. 50 of 1978 on the file of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif) of Tirupattur, has directed this revision petition questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment made in C. M. A. No. 3 of 1980 on the file of the appellate authority (Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur) dismissing the appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case which led to this revision can be stated thus: THE landlord, the respondent herein, filed I. A. No. 100 of 1979 seeking the permission of the Rent Controller to amend the H. R. C. petition by correcting the door number of the petition-mentioned premises as 56 from the wrongly mentioned door no. 57. This prayer was opposed not by the tenant. THE learned Rent Controller allowed the application and permitted the landlord to have the door number corrected as 56 as prayed for.

(3.) MR. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would vehemently contend that the judgment of the appellate authority is unsustainable since section 23 (1) (b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) hereinafter referred to as the Act) enables any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller to prefer an appeal to the appellate authority having jurisdiction within the prescribed time. According to the learned counsel, the word 'order', used in the said sub-section is wide enough to include every order, whatever be its nature, passed in the Rent Control proceedings and consequently it would include even an order while disposing of interlocutory matters Therefore, the only question that arises for my consideration is whether the word 'order' used in section 23 (1) (b) would include all kinds of orders passed while disposing of an interlocutory application.