MURUGAIYA KONAR Vs. DANIEL NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these six revisions are tenants within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 18 of 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the).

(2.) THE respondent is their landlord within the meaning of the Act. THE landlord obtained orders of eviction EX PARTE against the tenants. THE tenants filed applications to set aside the EX PARTE orders. THE landlord filed applications under Sec.11 of the Act, calling upon the tenants to deposit the rents. THE Controller allowed these applications and at the same time dismissed the applications filed by the tenants to set aside the EX PARTE orders of eviction. THE tenants referred appeals as against these orders and the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeals. THEse revisions are directed against the orders of the Appellate Authority.

(3.) THE above being the implication of Sec.11 of the Act, there is no warrant for the landlord to invoke that provision and equally so, the Controller was not competent to countenance the applications taken out by the landlord in this behalf. In this view, I could not uphold the decisions of the two forums below. Hence, these revisions are allowed. THE applications taken out by the landlord under Sec.11 of the Act will stand dismissed and the applications taken out by the tenants to set aside the orders of eviction passed EX PARTE will stand restored to the file of the Controller who shall deal with them on merits. I make no order as to costs.