A J DOSS Vs. SAROJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order in R.C.A.No.638 of 1991 dated 21.9.1992 on the file of Rent Control Appellate Authority (VII Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras, confirming the order in R.C.O.P.No.1973 of 1986 dated 5.9.1989 on the file of Rent Controller (XI Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras.

(2.) SHORT facts are: The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.1973 of 1986 on the file of XI Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, against the petitioner for eviction, on the ground of wilful default and owners occupation, alleged rent was Rs.500 p.m. and there was arrears from September, 1985 to May, 1986. The petitioner resisted the petition. The respondent filed a petition under Sec. 11(4) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act in M.P.No.63 of 1987, claiming arrears of rent as aforesaid and after contest by the petitioner, the learned Rent Controller passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.12,000 towards arrears of rent on or before 29.10.1987 and further directed that in case of default further proceedings will be stopped and posted the case on 30.10.1987.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.N.Krishnamithra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that the order passed on 28.7.1989 in CM.P.No.9084 of 1989 was a conditional order, the condition being that the petitioner should deposit in the trial court to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.1973 of 1986 a sum of Rs.2,000 on or before 31.8.1989 and that through there was no default clause entailing automatic vacating of stay, in case of failure to comply with the condition, on failure of the condition, the stay will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner beyond 31.8.1989 and that the petitioner had not deposited Rs.2,000 to the credit of R.C.O.P.No.1973 of 1986, but had deposited before another forum. So he would contend that the passing of the order of eviction on 5.9.1989 by the trial court, is perfectly in order. His further submission is that the petitioner has not informed the Supreme Court about the passing of the impugned order dated 5.9.1989 when the civil appeal was ultimately heard and order was passed on 3.9.1990 and while so, he cannot take advantage of that order of the Supreme Court for holding that the order passed on 5.9.1989 is not valid. It is his further submission that the order passed on 5.9.1989 was only a consequential order. He would add that a revision under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Act, 1960 can be sustained only if prejudice had occurred.