S SUNDARAM Vs. MEER HAMEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel on either side.

(2.) AN epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:The revision petitioner/petitioner filed RCOP No,26 of 1991 so as to evict the defendant Narayani @ Nagammal. This case has a chequered career of its own. AN exparte order of eviction was passed on 07.01.1992 and subsequently, it was set aside and the matter is pending ever since 1991. While so, I.A.No.109 of 2004, under Section 27 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein for getting themselves impleaded as though they are the Muthavallis of the Wakf, which is allegedly having ownership over the petition mentioned property. The lower Court after hearing both the sides, allowed the application. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been focussed on various grounds.

(3.) A bare perusal of the order of the lower Court coupled with the typed set of papers would display and demonstrate that the lower court without exercising its power under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 has kept the matter pending on its file. The fact remains that at the earliest point of time, viz., during the year 2002 itself the original respondent, viz., R3 herein filed the counter raising the point that the property is the Wakf property and that RCOP would not be maintainable whereupon the Court has numbered the RCOP as per the second proviso to sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, the Controller should have taken it up as a preliminary point and given its verdict thereon.