VACHER MILLS STORES Vs. K. GUNASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order of the unnumbered Docket Order in M.P.SR. No.12561 of 2024 in R.L.T.O.P. No.117 of 2023, dtd. 25/3/2024, on the file of the XIII Judge Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the Petitioner is before this Court with the present Revision.

(2.) Mr. G. Murugendran, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is a Tenant under the Respondent since 1970, by virtue of an oral rental agreement under the erstwhile Owner of the Suit premises Behal Venkataesh and presently, the Respondents became the Owners of the premises. The Petitioner carrying on wholesale and retail business in ball bearings and pulleys for the past 45 years and the premise is the principal place of business for the Petitioner. The Petitioner submits that Fair Rent was fixed at Rs.9235.00 per month by this Court in R.C.O.P. No.550 of 2014, dtd. 21/7/2017. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that the Respondents filed a Petition in RLTOP No.117 of 2023, before the Rent Court at Chennai, seeking a direction to direct the Petitioner to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the "Demised Premises" admeasuring to an extent of 247 Sq.Ft., located in No.21, (New No.18), Mooker Nallamuthu Street, Chennai, under Sec. 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Liabilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017. Subsequently, the Revision Petitioner filed an Application in M.P.SR. No.12561 of 2024 seeking a direction to take necessary and appropriate legal action as against the Respondents for the offences under Ss. 193, 196 & 209 of IPC. and to enquire under Sec. 195 read with 340, Cr.P.C. and issue appropriate direction to the Registrar, Rent Control Court at Chennai, to file a Complaint before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai, against the Respondent under Ss. 193, 196 & 209 of IPC. But, the said Application was returned, as against which, the Petitioner is before this Court with the present Revision.

(3.) It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that return of the Application on the ground that the Application to set aside the Decree has been rejected is wholly unjustifiable. The Trial Court ought to have numbered the Application and decided as to whether there was any perjury committed so as to enable prosecution." If the Court didn't proceed against the party who committed the offence enumerated in Clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 195, Cr.P.C., then the aggrieved party could very well approach the Court concerned with an Application and alert the Court to initiate proceedings under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C. Such an Application can be filed at the Court where false evidence was given or a false claim was made. The Petitioner under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C. filed to alert the Court to initiate proceedings under Sec. 340 but the Court below returned the same on the ground of maintainability without going through the merit of the case. The Court below should hold an enquiry regarding allegations of perjury made against the Respondents and if the Court came to a conclusion that there was perjury committed, the Enquiry Report may be forwarded by the Lower Court to the jurisdictional Magistrate, but if the Court came to the conclusion that the perjury is not made out then the Court should dismiss the Petition under Sec. 340, Cr.P.C. Here in this case, the Court without considering the perjury committed, returned the Petition on the ground of maintainability and it cannot be sustained. There is no proof to show that the Respondents demanded the Petitioner to execute a written rental agreement. The Petition was fabricated and filed before the Trial Court by the Respondents to mislead the trial Court and cause substantial injustice to the Petitioner.