LALCH Vs. PURUSHOTHAM MUNDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Order dated 21.11.2008 in R.C.A.Sr.No,25128 of 2008 against M.P.No,295 of 2008 in R.C.O.P.No.1668 of 2007 on the file of the II Judge, Court of Small Causes at Chennai, by allowing the Revision and consequently take the appeal RCA.SR.No,25128 of 2008.) The petitioner is tenant under the respondent in the disputed premises. The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.1668 of 2007 on the file of XV Small Causes Judge, Chennai. During the enquiry while the landlord was examined, Ex.P.10 and 11 were marked which are the receipt issued by Municipality and rental receipts respectively. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Controller under Rule 11 of The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, to demark and reject Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 and the petition was resisted by the landlord. Ultimately, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application.

(2.) IN the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 were not at all pleaded in the petition which are irrelevant and inadmissible documents and that Ex.P.11 is self-made document which does not bear any acknowledgement and hence both of them have to be eschewed by Court.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred a Rent Control Appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority (II Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai). But the Rent Control Appellate Authority did not accept the contention of the petitioner and rejected the appeal without taking it on file. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr.K.J. Parthasarathy would assail the Order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority by stating that under misconception of law the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal by stating that the order passed by the Rent Controller is not appealable. He draws attention of this Court to a decision of this Court reported in 1981 (2) MLJ 298 [T.N. Habib Khan, Prop., Hotel Impala and Impala Sweets vs. Arogya Mary Shanthi Lucien] wherein after referring and following various Judgments of the Supreme Court, this Court has concluded that the order passed by a Rent Controller in an Interlocutory Application is appealable one, since it adjudicates the rights of the parties. THE operative portion of the Judgment goes thus: