A CHANDRASEKAR` Vs. T VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed challenging an order dated 17. 7. 2008 passed by a learned Judge on the Original Side of this Court, whereby the learned Judge refused to transfer R. C. O. P. No. 193 of 2006 pending on the file of the XV Small Causes Court/rent Controller, Chennai to the file of this Court, to be tried along with the suit in C. S. No. 51 of 2006 and for stay of further proceedings before the Rent Controller. We find that the respondent/landlord has filed a rent control proceeding in the XV Small Causes Court/rent Controller, Chennai, inter alia, on the ground that the present appellant has not paid the rent in respect of the holding.

(2.) WE are not going into the merits of the controversy in the said rent control proceeding. We find that the present appeal is not maintainable for various reasons. First of all, it has been held by several High Courts that a proceeding pending before the Rent Controller cannot be transferred to the High Court under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the judgment in L. K. Phanesh Babu vs. Mohd. Akbar reported in (A. I. R. 2003 A. P. 168), a learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has come to a finding that the Rent Control Act and the Rules made thereunder constitute a complete Code covering the proceedings under the said Act and even with regard to the transfer of such proceedings before the Rent Controller as well as before the Appellate Authority, provisions are made in the Act and the Rules itself. Therefore, a petition for transfer of the proceeding under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code to the High Court is not maintainable [see paragraph 11 at page 175] :

(3.) COMING to the present Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, we find that under Section 34 of the said Act, there are provisions for making rules, and the rules have been framed under the said Act known as Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974. Under the said rules, Rule 14 provides for transfer of proceedings from one Controller to another and Rule 17 provides for transfer of proceedings from one Appellate Authority to another. Therefore, in the relevant Act and the Rules governing the field, there are adequate provisions for transfer. In that view of the matter, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Allahabad High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case.