A G KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. G V NAGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner in both the revision petitions is the tenant in the main RCOPs filed before the Rent Controller filed by the landlady/respondent to evict the tenant from the petition premises. Pending the RCOPs, the tenant filed Miscellaneous Petition Nos:473 and 481 of 2005 before the Rent Controller contending that the landlady is a mentally retarded person and she is not entitled to institute the main RCOPs against the tenant. According to the tenant the landlady is not in sound mental health for the past 60 years and one M. E. Devarajan has prepared bogus documents to file the main RCOPs. Even in the enquiry in the RCOPs one M. Ramasamy stood as witness and deposed on behalf of the landlady. Therefore, it is just and necessary to issue subphena to the landlady to appear in court and to satisfy the court as to her mental status.

(2.) ON behalf of the landlady, in the counter affidavit it was contended that the tenant is in arrears of nearly Rs. 22,000/=. The said Ramasamy is the power of attorney of the landlady. Since the landlady is 75 years old, she is not in a position to come to court and depose in her case and therefore she has given Power of Attorney to the said Ramasamy. The documents prepared by one M. E. Devarajan is denied. P. W. 1 Ramasamy has been cross examined in the main RCOPs. It is only to cause delay in the eviction proceedings, the present Miscellaneous Petitions are filed by the tenant.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller, on a consideration of the averments of the parties and the submissions made by the respective counsel rejected the plea for issuing a Subphena to the landlady. Against the same, the tenant preferred RCA Nos: 1012 and 1013 of 2005. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority also confirmed the findings of the learned Rent Controller and rejected the Rent Control Appeals. Having not satisfied, the present two CRPs are filed by the tenant.