SUCHITRA SEBASTIAN Vs. MICHAEL ARUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are tenants under the respondent. THE respondent filed RCOP No.2175 of 2007 on the file of the X Asst. Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai for eviction on the ground of wilful default. THE Rent Controller after enquiry allowed the application filed by the landlord under Section 11 (4) of the Act for eviction of these respondents. THE learned Rent Controller heard both sides and allowed M.P.No.188 of 2008 on 10.06.2009 directing these petitioners to pay rental arrears of Rs.10,50,000/- being the arrears of rent from November 1990 to May 2009 to the petitioners on or before 10.07.2009 failing which all further proceedings in the main RCOP will be stopped and eviction be ordered.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the said order, the tenant has preferred appeal in RCA No.236 of 2009 against the said order and the appellate authority after hearing both sides on 11.09.2009 disposed of the said appeal directing the learned rent controller to dispose of M.P.No.188 of 2008 in RCOP No.2175 of 2009 in accordance with law at the earliest. It is stated in the appellate court judgment that the rent controller has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 11 (3) of the Act and it would be appropriate to direct the learned rent controller to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

(3.) THIS Court on earlier occasions in the decision reported in 1973 2 MLJ 55 [C.Kuttappa Nair and Anr. vs. S.S.A. Shahul Hameed and Ors] and 2002 1 LLJ 1105 Mad [Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. vs. Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act] has decided that the appellate authority has no power to remand a matter and the only power given to him by the statute is to "make further enquiry either personally or through the Controller" if need be, and is bound to decide the various issues in the appeal himself. The case in R. Mani vs. Shanmugham and others (supra) is distinguishable for the reason that in the said case, the petition for setting aside the ex parte order was filed and the Rent Controller, without discussing the merits of the application, passed an order, as "the petitioner is closed", since the tenants have vacated the petitioner's premises. No adjudication was made in the said petition for setting aside the ex parte eviction order. But in the case in hand, there has been adjudication of matter on merits with reference to the pleadings and the documents produced by the Rent Controller and the only finding by the appellate authority is that no oral evidence has been recorded.