SWARNA CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. P.L. SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein has come forward with this Civil Revision Petition praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 16.04.2014 made in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.18 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Poonamallee.

(2.) THE revision petitioner herein is a tenant and the respondent herein is a landlord. The landlord/respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No.33 of 2009, under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, on the file of the District Munsif cum Rent Controller at Poonamallee, for fixation of fair rent, wherein, the learned trial Judge fixed the fair rent at Rs.65225/ - p.m., against which, the revision petitioner herein preferred R.C.A.No.18 of 2012 and the same is pending before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee). During the pendency of the appeal, the revision petitioner filed I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.A.No.18 of 2012, before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee), to mark the demand card issued by the Revenue Department, Corporation of Madras and Caveat application sent by the respondent filed in this Court as additional evidence. The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee), after considering the objection raised by the respondent herein, has dismissed the application, against which, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

(3.) RESISTING the same, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the revision petitioner herein wants to mark the property tax demand notice and also the caveat petition served on him, which are not necessary, because, the property tax demand notice has already been marked before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller has held that the said demand notice is a fabricated document. To circumvent the situation, the revision petitioner herein filed the application for reception of additional document. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submitted that the revision petitioner herein ought to have filed the additional document along with R.C.A. and not at this stage. Therefore, the trial Court has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and dismissed the application. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.