VENKITASUBBU RAMASWAMI VANAVARAYAR Vs. MARIMUTHU GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision of an order passed by the Rent Court, Pollachi under the following circumstances: A hereditary trustee of the Mariamman temple at Samathur filed an application on nth May, 1966 under Section 29 of the Madras Public Trusts (Regulation of Administration of Agricultural Lands) Act, 1961, for fixation of fair rent in respect of certain trust lands that had been leased out to the respondent herein. The original rent payable was about Rs. 600 per annum and the trustee wanted it to be enhanced to over Rs. 3,000 on the ground that the lease -hold had become converted into wet lands. This application was contested by the tenant and the enquiry was being postponed from 29th July, 1966 to 13th March, 1967 on which date neither the petitioner nor his advocate was present in Court and consequently, the Rent Court dismissed the petition for non -appearance of the petitioner. Under Rule 24 (2) of the Rules framed under the Act, the proceedings of Rent Court and the Rent Tribunal shall as far as possible be governed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code with regard among other things to the ordering the dismissal of the petition for default of appearance and setting aside such orders for good cause. On the very date on which the petition was dismissed for default, the Advocate appearing for the petitioner filed a petition for setting aside the order of dismissal. This petition was again contested by the tenant and by an order dated 5th January, 1968, the Rent Court dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non -appearance on 13th March, 1967. In the course of the order, the Rent Court makes an observation which cannot be regarded as correct in the light of the notes paper of the Court. For instance, the Rent Court has said that the petitioner had not attended any hearing of the case whereas in fact, the notes paper shows that the petitioner had been present at most of the previous hearings. It is not necessary at this stage to consider whether the dismissal of the restoration petition is justified.

(2.) THE more important question that arises for consideration is whether this Court can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with the order of the Rent Court when in fact an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to appeal against the order of the Rent Court to the authority prescribed in the special enactment. Section 29(2) of the Madras Act LVII of 1961 provides that from every decision of a Rent Court, an appeal shall, within such time as may be prescribed, lie to the Rent Tribunal whose decision shall be final, subject to revision, if any, under Section 32.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that an order of dismissal of an application for restoration of the petition for fixation of fair rent cannot be regarded as a decision of a Rent Court within the meaning of Clause (2) of Section 29 of the Act. In support of this contention, he places reliance upon a ruling of Ramachandra Iyer, J., reported in Peria Maria Gounden v. Ramaswami Gounder : (1962)1MLJ106 That was a case which arose under the Madras Cultivating Tenants (Payment of Fair Rent) Act, Section 29(2) which runs as follows: From every decision of a Rent Court, an appeal shall, within such time as may be prescribed, lie to the Rent Tribunal whose decision shall be final, subject to revision, if any, under Section 11.