K M MOHAMMED ALI Vs. P M MUSTHAFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern the civil revision petitions, 4 in number, namely CRP Nos. 741 to 744 of 2006.

(2.) THE court heard the learned counsel on either side. These civil revision petitions have arisen from the rejection of four miscellaneous petitions filed in RCOP Nos. 923 to 926 of 2001, which were originally pending on the file of the Rent Controller, XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The revision petitioner herein is the landlord under whom the respondents in these civil revision petitions are the tenants in respect of the shop premises. Originally, the agreed rental was Rs. 635/- Rs. 690/- Rs. 750/- and Rs. 805/- respectively. The landlord filed the above said RCOPs for fixation of fair rent. The Rent Controller, on enquiry, fixed the fair rent at Rs. 2226/- in the cases where the original agreed rental was Rs. 635/-, Rs. 690/- and Rs. 805/- and in the other case where the agreed rent was Rs. 750/-, the rental was fixed at Rs. 2710/ -. Aggrieved by the said order, eight appeals were preferred, four by the landlord and the other four by the tenants. All the eight appeals were dismissed by the appellate forum. Aggrieved over the same, the landlord brought forth CRP Nos. 2320 to 2323 of 2004 and they came up for hearing before this court. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and looking into the materials available, the court was of the opinion that certain reports are to be called for from the Rent Controller, for which purpose Advocate Commissioner was to be appointed with the assistance of the competent surveyor and the qualified engineer in order to find out the building value, etc. and for that granting three months time to submit the report, the matter was remand directly to the Rent Controller.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the Rent Controller and the Advocate Commissioner has also made her attempt to have the assistance of the Surveyor and also the qualified Engineer. At that juncture, the Commissioner could not proceed with the commission work due to the non co-operation on the side of the landlord and hence, the Advocate Commissioner has filed a report before the lower court, stating the difficulties experienced. Under these circumstances, the Rent Controller has dismissed the RCOPs for default. Four M. Ps. were filed for restoration of all four RCOPs, which were dismissed for default. The lower court has rejected all the M. Ps. , stating that those petitions could not be entertained by the said forum and hence, these four civil revision petitions have arisen at the instance of the landlord.