A. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM Vs. R. PANDISELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition has been filed against the fair and decretal order, dated 24.02.2014, passed in unnumbered R.C.A.A. No. 3940/05.02.2014, preferred against the order passed in I.A. No. 159 of 2013 in R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2007 on the file of Additional Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai, dated 12.11.2013.

(2.) THE revision petitioner herein is the tenant, whereas the respondents 1 to 3 are the landlords and the fourth respondent is the proposed fourth respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2007 on the file of Additional Rent Controller/Additional District Munsif Court, Madurai. The respondents 1 to 3 filed R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2007 under Section 10(2)(1) and 14(i)(b) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"], on the ground of wilful default and demolition and reconstruction. The petitioner filed an application in I.A. No. 159 of 2013 in R.C.O.P. No. 215 of 2007, for impleading the fourth respondent herein as fourth respondent in the R.C.O.P. The said application was dismissed on 12.11.2013. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 23(1)(b) of the Act before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The said unnumbered R.C.A. was rejected holding that only civil revision petition is lies against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, dismissing I.A. No. 159 of 2013 for impleading the fourth respondent. Against the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 argued that all the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller are not appealable, only the orders finally decides the issue in question are appealable. To substantiate his case, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 relied on the Judgment reported in, 2008(1) MLJ 732 [M. Thangamani Vs. P. Dharmaraj and Others], wherein in paragraph No. 17, it has been held as follows: -