LEELA LAWRANCE Vs. P SESHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision petitioner/petitioner/aggrieved party has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 05. 06. 2008 in M. P. No. 115/08 in m. P. 620 and 621 of 2007 in Execution Petition 426/07 in RCOP. No. 2134/02 passed by the learned XII Judge Court of Small Causes, Madras in dismissing the application filed under Rule 11 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act to issue subpoena to the bailiffs of Central Nazir Section for the purpose of cross examination.

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller while dismissing the miscellaneous petition 115/08 has inter alia 'opined that the petitioner is the daughter in law of the second respondent/judgment debtor and in the rent control proceedings she has adduced evidence on behalf of the second respondent and though the eviction order has been passed and also that Rent Control Appeal has been filed and resulted in dismissal and moreover nowhere in the earlier proceedings the petitioner has taken a plea that there were two portions under occupation of petitioner herein and the second respondent separately and no RCOP has been filed against her for eviction and only for the first time the delivery has been regarded. The petitioner has come forward with a plea that she is in occupation of a portion of the first floor which is not covered under RCOP proceedings and EP is not terminated and it is seen from the evidence of PW1 and 2 that the superstructure in the petition premises has now been partly demolished and no purpose would be served in summoning the bailiffs and the petition lacks bonafides and the petitioner had failed to establish the real necessity to issue subpoena to the witnesses' and resultantly dismissed the petition without costs.

(3.) IN the grounds of revision filed by the revision petitioner, it is averred that the learned Rent Controller has failed to notice that the decree and the execution Petition are not against the petitioner and also that the bailiffs have exceeded their limits and this can be established only by means of examining them and that the petitioner has adduced evidence on behalf of the second respondent in RCOP 2134/02 on the file of learned XII Judge Court of small Causes, Madras and moreover the description of the property mentioned in ep 426/07 has not been clearly described and therefore the bailiffs should have clarified the same in regard to the description of property before executing the warrant and these faculative aspects have not been taken note of by the learned rent Controller which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition.