SUBBAMMAL Vs. SADASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Court, Erode, in C.M.A. No. 23 of 1991. The petitioner filed R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1983 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973, against the respondent herein praying for an order of eviction on the grounds of wilful default in the payment of rent, sub-letting and bona fide requirement for purposes of demolition and reconstruction. The respondent was served with notice in that eviction petition on 26.2.1983. On 25.3.1983, the respondent purported to file O.P. No. 13 of 1983 under S. 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying that the petitioner should be directed to sell the site to the respondent at a price to be fixed by Court. The application so made was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that the respondent is not entitled to invoke the benefits of S. 9 of the Act. The learned District Munsif, Erode, took the view that as O.P. No. 13 of 1983 had been filed by the respondent within one month from the dale of service of notice in the eviction proceedings in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1983, that application could be maintained and that the entire site would be absolutely necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the respondent and in that view, he allowed the application and directed the matter to be called for determining the market value. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the petitioner preferred C.M.A. No. 23 of 1991, before the District Court, Erode. The learned District Judge concurred with the conclusion of the learned District Munsif that the application claiming the benefits of S. 9 of the Act in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 1983 having been filed within one month after the date of service of notice in the eviction petition on the respondent, was in time. However, with reference to the extent required for the convenient enjoyment of the respondent, the court below was of the view that only after a report in that regard is made available to the court, that can be dealt with. It is the correctness of the orders so passed by the courts below that is questioned in this civil revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below had committed an error in holding that the application filed by the respondent under S. 9 of the Act, is maintainable. According to learned counsel, proceedings for eviction under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act cannot by any means be equaled to a suit in ejectment, as ordinarily understood, and in the absence of the institution of a suit in ejectment and the service of summons therein, there is no question of the filing of any application under S. 9 of the Act, claiming benefits thereunder. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent tried to maintain that the application filed by the respondent, claiming the benefits of S. 9 of the Act was property laid and is maintainable.