A NACHIMUTHU DIED Vs. NAVANEETHAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.No.2689 of 1996 is filed questioning the order dated 19.3.1996 in I.A.No.196 of 1996 in R.C.A.No.20 of 1995 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore. Similarly, C.R.P.No.2690 of 1996 is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.3.1996 passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, Coimbatore in R.C.A.No.20 of 1995 reversing the decree and judgment dated 18.11.1994 in R.C.O.P.No.300 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (III Additional District Munsiff), Coimbatore.

(2.) The revision petitioner/tenant filed R.C.O.P.No.300 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (III Additional District Munsif), Coimbatore under Section 8(5) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred as "Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960") to permit her to deposit the rent on account of the fact that the respondents/landlords refused to receive the rent remitted by M.O. under sub-Section (iv) of that Section and continue to deposit the rent into the Court. The learned Rent Controller having analysed the evidence adduced allowed the revision petitioner to remit the rent into the Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred the appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, who having heard the arguments of both sides allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the Rent Controller. Further the Rent Control Appellate Authority permitted the revision petitioner to produce the documents as additional evidence which have been received and marked as Exs.R-1 to R-3 in the appeal. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, these revision petitions have been filed by the revision petitioner (since deceased).

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has argued at the out set that since the respondents refused to receive the rent sent by the 1st petitioner through M.O., the 1st petitioner was constrained to file the petition before the Rent Controller to remit the rent into the Court. Hence, he has urged that the order passed by the learned Rent controller permitting the 1st petitioner to deposit the rent into Court has to be confirmed by setting aside the orders passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.