BAGHAWANDAS MANGAL Vs. S MOHAMED IQBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 13-2-2004 made in E. P. No. 515 of 2003 in R. C. O. P. No. 988 of 2003 by the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai.

(2.) TRACING the history of the above Civil Revision Petition coming to be filed before this Court, it comes to be known that the respondent herein/landlord has filed R. C. O. P. No. 988 of 2003 before the Court below under Sections (2) (i) and 10 (2) (vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the same having been decreed ex parte on 1-8-2003, the landlord has also filed an Execution Petition in E. P. No. 515 of 2003 and since the Court below has terminated the Execution Petition after recording the submission of the learned counsel for the landlord that possession has already been taken, the petitioner/tenant has come forward to file the above civil revision petition on grounds such as that the order passed by the lower Court was consequent to improper mode of service i. e. paper publication, which is not at all contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act; that the respondent/landlord had deliberately taken the notice and warrant to the rental premises, which is a godown wherein the petitioner/tenant may not be available most of the times; that the petitioner was not served as per the provisions of Rule 22 of the Tamil nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 in spite of the respondent having full knowledge that the petitioner is always available at No. 10, Perianna Naicken Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai, which is the address given both in the RCOP as well as in the E. P. ; that without ordering notice to the correct address given in the cause title, the lower Court has ordered substituted service of publication thus circumventing the procedure warranted to be adopted; that the Court below has failed to note that the respondent has abused the process of law by attempting to serve the notice on the wrong address. On such grounds, the petition has come forward to file the above civil Revision Petition seeking the relief extracted supra.

(3.) DURING arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would lay stress that the Execution Petition has been closed without disposing of the articles belonging to the tenant kept therein; that unless the Execution Petition is reopened, the tenant cannot get his articles back and contest the case; that whether closure of the E. P. is right or not, particularly without disposing of the articles of the tenant ordering the same in the (sic) is the point for consideration; that the landlord has played fraud on the Court in taking notices to a different address instead of the address offered both in the R. C. O. P. and the E. P. and would pray to allow the above Civil Revision Petition.