R. CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. S. KARTHIK & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the common judgement dated 3.2.2012 passed by the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, (Rent Control Appellate authority), Principal Subordinate Judge, in R.C.A.Nos. 684, 686, 688, 600, 692, 695 of 2011 in ordering redelivery in favour of six second respondents herein, setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the Rent Controller, Executing Court, in E.A.Nos. 136, 137, 139, 129, 133, 131 of 2011 in E.P.No. 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 1200 of 2010 in RCOP Nos. 1175, 1176, 1177, 1178, 1179, 268 of 2007, these civil revision petitions are focussed. A recapitulation and resume of relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these revision petitions would run thus:

(2.) AT this juncture, it has to be pointed out by me that no application under Order 21 Rule 99 was filed for obtaining redelivery of possession.

(3.) A mere running of the eye over the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller in those E.As. would highlight that the Rent Controller did not adhere to the procedure contemplated under law and dealt with the matter like a suit strictly as per 0.21 Rule 103 of C.P.C. No issues were framed and the matter was not processed as a suit. However, he ultimately dismissed the applications as untenable, as against which, the six second respondents in these revisions, each preferred two RCAs, one agitating as against the order passed by the Rent Controller in dismissing their applications for redelivery and another for directing the rent controller, Executing Court, not to record delivery.