K RAJAGOPALAN Vs. GNANAPANDITHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 9.1.2014 passed in R.C.A. No. 385 of 2013 on the file of the learned VIII Court of Small Causes, Chennai by reversing the Order and Decretal Order dated 23.7.2013 passed in M.P. No. 344 of 2013 in M.P. No. 614 of 2012 in RCOP. No. 2076 of 2012 on the file of the XI Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The Revision Petitioner/Landlord has filed RCOP. No. 2076 of 2012 for eviction on the ground of willful default. During the pendency of the RCOP, he filed M.P. No. 614 of 2012 under Section 11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (Act 18 of 1960) (hereinafter called as the "Act"). In the said Petition, the Respondent/Tenant filed a Petition in M.P. No. 344 of 2013 under Order 19, Rules 1 & 2 r/w Sections 94(6), 141 & 151 of C.P.C. seeking permission to cross-examine the Landlord with regard to his Affidavit. However, the Revision Petitioner/Landlord without filing any objection had questioned the maintainability of the said Petition. After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides and considering the Petition filed by the Tenant, the Trial Court has dismissed the Petition against which the Respondent/Tenant filed R.C.A. No. 385 of 2013. During the pendency of the R.C.A. the Petition in M.P. No. 614 of 2012 filed under Section 11(4) of the Act has been allowed and the Tenant was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/-. Thereafter, the R.C.A. No. 385 of 2013 was also allowed, against which the present Revision has been preferred.

(2.) Challenging the impugned Order, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has put forth his argument on the following lines:

(3.) Thus, on the above grounds, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner prayed for setting aside the Order passed by the learned Trial Judge and for allowing of the Civil Revision Petition. To substantiate his argument, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the following decisions: