S MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF T N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a desperate attempt to resist the execution levied against him by the 3rd respondent (landlord) to evict him, the tenant/petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for the issue of writ of declaration in order to nullify S.18(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). S.18(2) lays down that an order passed in execution under sub-sec.(1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision. According to the petitioner, sub-sec.(1) of S.18 constitutes the Rent Controller a Civil Court and therefore, sub-sec.(2) is ultra vires as it disentitles an affected party to file an appeal or revision against an order in execution made under sub-sec.(1).

(2.) Mohan, J. has already upheld the validity of sub-sec.(2) of S.18 of the Act in Purushothama Chettiar v. State of Tamil Nadu (W. P. No. 5819 of 1979 judgment dated 6-2-1980) wherein the learned Judge has held as follows :- "Under S.18 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, an order of eviction is deemed as an order of Civil Court only for the limited purpose of execution. That does not mean that the further remedy available under the Civil P.C., namely, appeal and revision should be provided for. There is no discrimination whatever, when the provisions of a special statute, namely, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, applied. Following this order, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limine, without further discussion. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to refer to certain other factors, as they would show how patently untenable the contention of the petitioner is. S.18 of the Act, reads as follows :-

(3.) It has then to be pointed out that sub-sec.(1) of S.18 refers to orders passed under various sections, viz., 10, 14, 15, 16 and 17. While the orders passed under Ss.10 and 14 will be orders of eviction passed in favour of the landlords, the orders passed under S.15, 16 and 17 will be orders passed in favour of tenants. S.15 provides for a tenant to reoccupy after repairs and S.16 provides for a tenant to reoccupy the building released under S.14(1) (b), if the landlord fails to demolish the building as per the undertaking given by him. More worthy of notice is S.17, which safeguards the rights of tenants by interdicting landlords from disrupting the amenities enjoyed by the tenants. If we accepted the contention of the petitioner that an affected party is entitled to an appeal or revision against every order passed by the Rent Controller in execution, then it would lead to a chaotic situation because the tenants, for whose protection the Act has been framed, will stand deprived of immediate benefits under Ss.15, 16 and 17. A landlord, who is called upon under S.15 or 16 to restore possession of the building to the tenant or to restore amenities to a tenant under S.17, can contumaciously drag on the proceedings by challenging the order of the Rent Controller in appeal or revision and harass the tenant. Similarly a landlord who is urgently in need of his building for his own occupation or by way of additional accommodation can also be kept at bay by an unreasonable tenant preferring an appeal or revision against the order of execution and dragging on matters endlessly. It is in order to prevent such a calamitous situation, the Legislature has advisedly and designedly enacted sub-sec.(2) and specifically provided that an order passed in execution under sub-sec.(1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision.