AMRA PRESS Vs. MD MUNEERUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision petition has been filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of eviction dated 23.12.1988 passed by the Rent Controller (XIX Judge, Court of Small Causes) in R.C.O.P.No.3348 of 1988. A copy of the order has been made available in the typed set of papers and it is seen from the said order that the order of eviction has been made ex parte on examining the witness for the petitioner alone, on account of the absence of the respondent in the eviction petition. This revision petition has been filed on the averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the stay application that the petitioners came to know of the passing of the order of eviction when notice was received in the execution proceedings in E.P.No.229 of 1989. It is also stated in the affidavit which only explains the circumstances under which the petitioners have come to this Court with this revision, that notices in the eviction petition were received by somebody else viz., the clerk in respect of the first petitioncr and one C.H.L.Narayanan, on behalf of the second petitioner at the initial stages and they have not brought it to the notice of the petitioners. Averments are also made that the ground on which the eviction has been ordered viz., wilful default is not only baseless but the order of the court below also does not contain any objective consideration of the claim as visualised under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following two decisions in support of his claim to justify recourse to this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India directing against the order of eviction. The decision in G.Muthabaksh v. A.P.Swamy, 93 L.W. 615 is that of a learned single Judge of this Court where it has been held that there is a statutory obligation on the statutory authorities functioning under the Act to give a finding about the bona fide requirement of the landlord even though the petition may be disposed of ex parte and that even in a case where the tenant is absent, the statutory authority is obliged to consider the evidence adduced by the landlord and arrive at proper findings. It may be noticed that the said judgment was rendered by this Court on a revision filed under Sec.25 of the Act apparently after exhausting the remedy of appeal before the court below. The decision next relied upon is that of another learned Judge in S.S.K.Mohamed Rowther and Co. v. Sundaram and Bros., A.I.R. 1970 Mad. 147. That was also a case which came up to this Court in a revision under Sec.25 of the Act. The learned Judge was of the view that even an ex parte order of eviction should contain a finding about the satisfaction of the Rent Controller and in the absence of any finding on the satisfaction recorded by the Rent Controller as obliged under the provisions of the Act, the order would be a nullify. On the basis of the above two decisions, it is contended that the order of the Rent Controller being one made without complying with the statutory requirements of recording a finding of satisfaction before ordering eviction, it should be considered to be a nullity and, therefore, the petitioners were right in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) FOR all the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the present revision ought not to be entertained under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The revision fails and therefore, shall stand rejected. The rejection of this revision shall not preclude the petitioners from approaching the court under the provisions of the Act itself as are permissible in land and as and when any such proceedings are initiated, the courts concerned shall consider such proceedings on their own merits and in accordance with law.