M VARADARAJULU CHETTI Vs. C SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised in the civil revision petition, though look very peculiar, in the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the order impugned in the civil revision petition has to be set aside and remand the matter back to the Rent Controller, that is, the original authority for deciding R.C.C.No.16/87 from the stage of the respondent adducing evidence.

(2.) It is contended by Sri P.S. Narayana, the Jeamed counsel for the petitioner that the said R.C.C.16/87 was filed by the landlord-petitioner herein on two counts, viz., wilful default and acts of waste. The evidence on behalf of the petitioner-landlord was adduced and the respondent-tenant for reasons unknown failed to adduce evidence and therefore on 7-9-89 he was set ex parte. Consequently, decree was passed in favour of the landlord-petitioner directing eviction of the respondent-tenant. As against setting ex parte on 7-9-89, C.M.A. No.9/89 was filed by the respondent-tenant before the lower appellate Court An I.A.95/89 was filed by the respondent-tenant to set aside the ex parte order passed by the learned Rent Controller and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, C.M.A.10/89 was filed by the respondent-tenant.

(3.) In C.M.A.9/89, it is contended that the lower appellate Court while setting aside the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 7-9-89 ought to have remitted back the matter to the original forum, that is, the Rent Controller and ought to have directed the parties to lead evidence from where it had stopped. Instead, the lower appellate Court has grossly decided the matter on merits and allowed the appeal, which is contrary to norms. Be that as it may, I am not inclined to go into merits and demerits of the case.