SIRAJUDEEN Vs. P.HAJA NASUBUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revisions are filed challenging the orders, dtd. 15/9/2017 passed by the learned Rent Controller (District Munsif), Ramanathapuram, in I.A.Nos.136, 131 to 135 and 140 of 2015 in R.C.O.P.Nos.11, 17, 16, 15, 14, 12 and 13 of 2015 respectively.

(2.) The common question involved in all the above Civil Revision Petitions is whether the revision petitioners could maintain an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Rent Controller considering the fact that the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 is a complete code in itself to which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply.

(3.) The common facts in all the above Civil Revision Petitions are that the 2nd respondent/tenants had been inducted under the mother of the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent herein. She had been collecting the rent through her husband. While so, she passed away and thereafter, her husband continued to collect the rents for and on behalf of other legal representatives. After his demise, there was a default in the payment of rents and therefore, the 1st respondent, who is his elder son, had stepped in to file petitions to evict the tenants in respect of the different demised premises on the ground of willful default.