MAYA APPLIANCES LTD Vs. A SULOCHANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is tenant and the revision is filed against the rejection order dated 27. 2. 2001 in Memo SR. No. 1628 of 2001 in R. C. O. P. No. 3284 of 1984 on the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.

(2.) THE respondent/landlady filed R. C. O. P. No. 3284 of 1984 for fixation of fair rent in respect of the premises bearing door No. 8-A and 8-B, Boat Club Road, Adayar, Madras measuring 9 grounds comprising of ground floor and first floor occupied by the revision petitioner as tenant under the respondent. The Rent Controller (XII Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras after enquiry fixed the fair rent at Rs. 6,810/- per month as per order dated 20. 4. 1987. Not satisfied with the fair rent so fixed, the landlady, viz. , the respondent herein filed R. C. A. No. 194 of 1988 and the tenant, viz. , the revision petitioner filed R. C. A. No. 5 of 1988 and the Rent Control Appellate Authority (V Judge, Small Causes Court), Madras, revised the fair rent at Rs. 8,967/- per month as per common judgment dated 10. 11. 1989. The landlady filed C. R. P. No. 1107 of 1991 and the tenant filed C. R. P. No. 2750 of 1990 and this Court as per common order dated 29. 2. 1996 directing to fix the value of the vacant site properly as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in H. C. Lodha vs.- Dr. C. Ranganathan, etc. , reported in 1989-1 Law Weekly 137 and in further directing the site and one half of the built up area is to be added for the purpose of fixation of market value and the remaining extent is to be considered as amenity and setting aside the orders of the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, remanded the matter back to the Rent Control Appellate Authority for disposal accordingly by affording opportunities to both parties for adducing further evidence and also directing to dispose both the appeals before 31. 8. 1996. After remand, the landlady has withdrawn the appeal R. C. A. No. 194 of 1988 filed by her on 3. 7. 1996 and on the same day, the tenant also has withdrawn the appeal R. C. A. No. 5 of 1988 filed by him.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the tenant filed memo subject matter of this revision to take up the R. C. O. P. No. 3284 of 1984 for fresh disposal as per the order of this Court dated 29. 2. 1996. The Rent Controller, in view of the direction of this Court in C. R. P. Nos. 2750 of 1990 and 1107 of 1991 directing the Rent Control Appellate Authority to dispose the Rent Control Appeals R. C. A. Nos. 5 of 1988 and 194 of 1988 and in view of such specific direction, rejected the memo SR. No. 1628 filed by the tenant to take up the R. C. O. P. No. 3284 of 1984 for fresh disposal and the order is under challenge in this revision.