PARTHASARATHY Vs. GOVINDA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall control the above revisions. C. R. P. No. 408 of 2007 has arisen from the order of the Rent Controller made in mpsr No. 8727 of 2003 a petition for reopening the evidence of the respondent in rcop No. 1735/99, while C. R. P. No. 415 of 2007 has arisen from the order made in rca No. 470 of 2003 on the file of the VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, madras, affirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.

(2.) ORIGINALLY the RCOP was filed by the respondent herein seeking eviction on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and also on the ground of denial of title. The tenant appeared and raised objections. Then, the matter was taken up for enquiry. The husband of the respondent-landlady was examined as P. W. 1. The entire examination of the witness on the side of the landlady was over, and the evidence on the side of the respondent-landlady was closed. Thereafter, the matter was posted for the cross-examination on the side of the tenant. The matter was adjourned twice for that purpose, but not done so. While the matter stood thus, the tenant died. An application to add the legal representatives was filed by the respondent-landlady. The brother of the said tenant by name Parthasarathy, who preferred these revisions, was added as party. Then, he filed an additional counter. Pending the same, he filed two applications in MPSR Nos. 8324 and 8325/2003 for the purpose of reopening and recalling P. W. 1. Both the applications were rejected. Thereafter, the Rent controller heard the arguments and posted the matter for passing orders. On 17. 4. 2003, he filed an application in MPSR No. 8727 of 2003 for permitting him to examine himself. The said application was rejected by the Rent Controller. Thereafter, the Rent Controller passed an order of eviction agreeing with the case of the landlady. Aggrieved, the tenant took it on appeal. On enquiry, the appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of the rent Controller on the ground of denial of title only. Under the circumstances, both these revisions have been brought forth by the tenant. Pending the revisions, the first petitioner/tenant died, and the legal representatives were added as parties.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that nothing survives in these revisions before this Court. Admittedly, the landlady filed the petition on both the grounds of demolition and reconstruction and also on the ground of denial of title. The respondent's side evidence was adduced through P. W. 1, the husband of the landlady. He was not cross-examined. It is quite evident from the materials available that after the evidence was closed, sufficient opportunity was given to the tenant to adduce evidence, but not done so. Pending the same, the tenant died. An application was filed to add the legal representatives. The legal representative who is none other than the brother of the tenant, was added, and he prosecuted the matter further. At that juncture, he filed two applications for reopening and recalling P. W. 1 and without adducing evidence on his side. The filing of the applications at that juncture would be indicative of the fact that it was nothing but a delaying tactics introduced by the first petitioner. The Rent Controller after hearing both sides, was convinced that there was a case for the landlady, who was entitled for eviction, and accordingly, ordered. The Rent Control Appellate Authority has passed the reasoned order affirming the order of the Rent Controller, which does not require any interference in the hands of this Court.