M R RAVICHANDRAN Vs. D SRIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/appellant has filed the above civil revision petition as against the order dated 9. 9. 2009 in M. P. No. 518 of 2008 in R. C. A. No. 445 of 2005 passed by the learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(2.) THE learned Appellate Authority viz. ,viii Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, while passing orders in M. P. NO. 515 of 2008 on 9. 9. 2009 has inter alia opined that' the order can be passed in this application only at the time of hearing of appeal and therefore has directed M. P. No. 518 of 2008 to be called along with the main RCA. No. 445 of 2005 on 11. 9. 2009'.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the main order passed by the learned Appellate Authority in M. P. No. 518 of 2008 dated 9. 9. 2009 is opposed to law, all probabilities of the case and weight of evidence and the learned Appellate Authority has heard both sides in M. P. No. 518 of 2008 and reserved the said miscellaneous petition for orders but failed to pass orders in the said miscellaneous petition and as a matter of fact, the learned Appellate Authority should have seen that all the additional grounds have arisen after filing of the Rent Control Appeal and several additional grounds need to be proved by letting in evidence and further that the additional grounds now raised cannot be proved without evidence and it is impossible to argue the additional grounds along with the main grounds in Rent Control Appeal and indeed the additional ground Nos. 5 to 9 are all subsequent events which have been arisen after filing of the appeal and Section 23 of the Tamil Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18/60 enables the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal not only on the grounds raised already, but also the other grounds to be raised at the subsequent point of time, there is no bar for the revision petitioner to raise the additional grounds when the Rent Control Appeal is pending before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority and by permitting the revision petitioner to raise the additional grounds, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, but it will serve the interest of justice only and in any event, the learned Appellate Authority ought to have passed the final order in M. P. No. 518 of 2008 but these aspects of the matter have not been appreciated by the learned first Appellate Authority in a proper and real perspective and therefore prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice.