A. CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. T. VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned Rent Controller (XV Judge, Small Causes Court) at Chennai dated 21.02.2011 made in M.P.Sr.No.2950 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.193 of 2006. The said R.C.O.P has been filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner herein for eviction on the ground of willful default under Section 10(2)(i), owner's occupation under Section 10(3)(a)(i) and under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The petition is resisted by the revision petitioner herein contending that he is in possession of the petition premises not as a tenant but as an agreement holder having obtained possession in part performance of an agreement for sale allegedly executed by the respondent herein in favour of the petitioner on 02.02.1999.

(2.) Though the eviction petition came to be filed in the year 2006, it has been dragged on for 8 long years. The alleged agreement executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner is denied by the respondent. It seems the revision petitioner has chosen to file a suit on the original side of this Court in C.S.No.51 of 2006 for the relief of specific performance. Consequent to the changes in the pecuniary jurisdiction, the said suit was subsequently transferred to the City Civil Court and the same is pending as O.S.No.11949 of 2010 on the file of XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. It also transpires that the revision petitioner has obtained an order of interim injunction pending disposal of the said suit restraining the respondent herein from interfering with his physical possession of the suit property and also from alienating the said property in favour of third parties. Under the said circumstances, the revision petitioner chose to file a memo dated 01.09.2008 praying for the dismissal of the eviction petition R.C.O.P.No.193 of 2006. After the respondent herein filed an objection for the memo, the said memo was rejected by the Rent Controller by a detailed order dated 04.11.2008. As against the said order dated 04.11.2008 rejecting the memo praying for the dismissal of the eviction petition on the ground of absence of jurisdiction, the revision petitioner filed a revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.3820 of 2008. The said C.R.P came to be disposed of by an order dated 19.01.2009 with the following observation and direction.

(3.) Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed his objections for the objections filed to the memo before the learned Rent Controller and the learned Rent Controller by an order dated 18.03.2009 rejected the prayer made in the memo and closed it. As against the said order, the revision petitioner herein filed C.R.P. No.1145 of 2009 before this Court. It was contended therein that the order challenged in the said C.R.P was passed without giving an opportunity to him to put forward his case. Another learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 09.09.2009 rejected the contention raised therein by the revision petitioner . Accordingly, the said Civil Revision Petition came to be dismissed by order dated 09.09.2009. Thereafter, the revision petitioner herein filed a miscellaneous petition M.P.No.76 of 2011 praying that the question of jurisdiction might be decided as a preliminary issue. Pending disposal of the said miscellaneous petition, the revision petitioner, who is the respondent in the R.C.O.P, filed another miscellaneous petition in M.P.SR.No.2950 of 2011 to summon certain documents from the Corporation of Chennai as, according to him, the same would provide clinching evidence for answering the question of jurisdiction raised by him. The learned Rent Controller rejected the said petition in the SR stage itself, which is impugned in the present revision.