A. MOHIDEEN Vs. M.K. CHANDRA KANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition at the instance of the tenant/Petitioner is directed against the order of the appellate authority (III Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, in H.R.A. No. 1351 of 1980 holding that the Rent Controller is the appropriate authority for taking the necessary steps to prosecute the petition under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and allowing an application in that regard taken out by the Respondent herein in M.P. No. 152 of 1980 in H.R.C. No. 2613 of 1978. The facts giving rise to the civil revision petition are as follows:

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , the Respondent is the landlord of the building bearing door No. 34, Old No. 37/38, Evening Bazaar, Madras -3.The Petitioner is a tenant in occupation of the corner shop of the said building on a monthly rent of Rs. 225. In H.R.C. No. 2613 of 1978, before the Rent Controller (13th Judge, Court of Small Causes) Madras, filed on 20th September, 1978 under Section 10(2)(i) and Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Respondent herein prayed for an order of eviction against the Petitioner on the grounds that the Petitioner had committed wilful default in the payment of rents and that the Respondent bona fide required the premises in the occupation of the Petitioner for purposes of carrying on his own business. That application was posted for hearing on 22nd November, 1978 and as the Petitioner did not contest the same, ex parte evidence was recorded and an order for eviction was passed, which was subsequently set aside on an application made by the Petitioner. Later, the matter was posted to 5th December, 1978, for the filing of the counter by the Petitioner and was subsequently adjourned to 2nd January, 1979 on which date the Petitioner filed the counter stating that the Respondent is not carrying on business under the name and style of Senthil Traders at No. 9, Poonamallee High Road and that he is a permanent resident of Coimbatore and as such, his need is not bona fide. The application for eviction was posted for trial and on 9th April, 1979 and on 11th April, 1979, the Respondent was examined in chief. Thereafter, on 11th April, 1979, the Petitioner filed M.P. No. 343 of 1979 in H.R.C. No. 2613 of 1978 praying for permission to file an additional counter statement. On 20th April, 1979, the learned Rent Controller allowed the application filed by the Petitioner in M.P. No. 343 of 1979 and permitted the filing of an additional counter and adjourned the case to enable the Petitioner to cross examine the Respondent. However, the Petitioner did not avail of the opportunity so given to him even though the matter was adjourned to several dates and ultimately, a memo was filed on behalf of the Respondent before the Rent Controller setting out that the Petitioner has not availed of the opportunity afforded and praying that the eviction petition should be further proceeded with. On 24th April, 1979, since the Petitioner did not turn up when the matter was posted and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was also absent, the Rent Controller passed an ex parte order of eviction against the Petitioner. On an application filed by the Petitioner, the Rent Controller set aside the ex parte order and restored the application for eviction and thereafter, the petition for eviction was posted for the cross -examination of the Respondent from day to day from 6th August, 1979, till about 17th August, 1979. On 16th August, 1979, in M.P. No. 647 of 1979, the Petitioner prayed that he should be permitted to file an additional counter in which he has stated that there are other tenants in other portions of the building which are bigger and the Respondent can occupy those portions and that the claim for an order of eviction against the Petitioner only from the building in his occupation is not bone fide. That application was rejected on 27th August, 1979 and an appeal against that order was preferred by the Petitioner in H.R.A. No. 1493 of 1979 before the appellate authority (4th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. In the affidavit in support of the application filed by the Petitioner therein for obtaining stay of the enquiry in H.R.C. No. 2613 of 1978, in paragraph 9, the Petitioner stated that the grounds of appeal filed by him may be treated as part and parcel of that affidavit. In ground No. 4 in the memorandum of appeal in H.R.A. No. 1493 of 1979, the Petitioner has stated that the learned Judge should have seen that in the ground floor one portion was under the occupation of the landlord Mr. Chandra Kant. The Respondent filed a counter denying the allegations in the affidavit as well as the correctness of the grounds of appeal and prayed for the cancellation of the stay and in paragraph 6 of the counter, the Respondent has stated that the allegation that "one portion is under the occupation of the landlord Chandra Kant" is false to the knowledge of the Petitioner and he is liable to be prosecuted for perjury. By an order dated 24th November, 1979, the appellate authority, without entering into a consideration of this aspect of the matter, allowed the appeal and permitted the Petitioner to file a second additional counter.

(3.) THAT application was resisted by the Petitioner on the ground that he has to file M.P. No. 647 of 1977 praying for the filing of an additional counter as only at that stage, he found out that the other tenants were in occupation of the building and that against them, the Respondent has not filed eviction petitions and that fact was not earlier pleaded. The statement made by the Petitioner in paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the application in M.P. No. 1949 of 1977 was claimed not to be a false allegation. There was no misrepresentation or perjury or suppression, according to the Petitioner, and no offence under Ss.177, 181, 182 and 192, I.P.C., had been committed by him. The Petitioner also denied that a case has been made out against him for his prosecution. It was also the further plea of the Petitioner that in the absence of any provision in the Act for initiating an action for perjury, no proceedings in that regard would lie. An objection was also raised by the Petitioner that the Rent Controller is not a Court and further that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. The application filed by the Respondent was characterised as one intended to harass the Petitioner. As the Petitioner according to him, has not committed any perjury or committed any of the offences under Ss.177. 181, 182 and 193, I.P.C., and Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the application.