C MOHAN REDDY Vs. S FLORET

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/appellant/tenant has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 7.10.2009 made in R.C.A. No. 565 of 2008 passed by the Learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes (Appellate Authority), Chennai in confirming the order made in R.C.O.P. No. 2146 of 2007 dated 15.7,2008 passed by the Learned XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) The Learned Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in the order dated 7.10.2009 in R.C.A. No. 565 of 2008 in R.C.O.P. No. 2146 of 2007 has among other things opined that 'the Learned Rent Controller has addressed all the issues in its proper perspective and has come to a right conclusion that the respondent has to be evicted under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act which does not suffer from any serious factual or legal infirmity that warrants interference from this Court' and resultantly dismissed the Rent Control Appeal without cost and further directed the revision petitioner/appellant/tenant to put the respondent/landlord in vacant possession of the petition premises on or before 7.12.2009. .

(3.) At the outset, the Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/appellant/tenant urges before this Court that the Learned Appellate Authority viz., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai has totally ignored the directions issued by this Court in the common order passed in CRP (NPD) Nos.2224 to 2226 of 2009 dated 4.8.2009, wherein this Court has set aside the order dated 10.7.2009 passed in M.P. Nos. 48, 49 and 50 of 2009 respectively in R.C.A. No. 565 of 2008 and further this Court has directed the Appellate Court to dispose of all the petitions filed by the petitioner herein along with the main appeal after hearing both sides within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and accordingly disposed of the civil revision petitions, but unfortunately the Appellate Authority has disposed of RCA. No. 565 of2008 on 7.10.2009 by not adhering to the directions issued by this Court in the common order passed in CRP(NPD) Nos.2224 to 2226 of 2009 dated 4.8.2009 and therefore, the order so delivered in R.C.A. No. 565 of 2008 dated 7.10.2009 by the Learned Appellate Authority i.e., VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai is not valid in law and the same is also an illegal one which resultantly renders the said order as a vitiated one in the eye of law on account of patent illegality and on this simple ground alone, the civil revision petition needs to be allowed by this Court to prevent an aberration of justice and to promote substantial cause of justice.