Execution court to hear Application by allowing parties to let in oral and documantary evidence.
Citation
CDJ 2016 MHC 3630
Vanitha vs Dhanasekaran
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act – Validity of order – Petitioner challenged judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing fair and final order passed by the Rent Controller -
Court Held – The Rent Controller had considered all aspects and rejected application – Only infirmity in order is that parties are not given opportunity to put forth their case – Inspite of filing affidavit of undertaking before the Apex Court stating that second Petitioner will not induct any third party in property, third party Petitioners have filed application under Order 21 Rule 96 to 100 of CPC claiming right over property – The Rent Control Appellate Authority had also rightly observed that the Rent Controller could have passed similar order after giving opportunity to both sides – Order of the Rent Controller is liable to be set aside only on ground that application is not numbered and opportunity is not given to parties to put forth their case – Order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding matter for numbering application and giving opportunity to both parties is just and proper – No reason to interfere with order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority – Petition dismissed.
(Paras 13, 14)
Cases Referred:
1. 2011 (6) SCC 385 (Atma Ram Builders Private Limited vs A.K. Tuli and Others),
2. 2003 (3) MLJ 445 (S. Parameshwaran Pillai vs The Deputy General Manager, Tele Communications, Trichy and Others),
3. 2002 (3) MLJ 500 (N. Bacherlal vs S. Subhash Chandra Bose),
4. 1973 (2) MLJ 55 (C. Kuttappa Nair and another vs S.S.A.Shahul Hameed and Others),
5. 2002 (1) SCC 662 (N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and Others) vs Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd and Others,
6. 1998 (4) SCC 543 (Shreenath and anther vs Rajesh and Others),
7. Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and Another (1997) (3) SCC 694),
8. 1997(3) SCC 694 (Brahmdeo Chaudhary vs Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another),
9. 2014(1) MLJ 222 (Duraisamy Naidu (died) and Others vs Sivaprakasa Mudalir and Others,
10. 1991 (2) L.W 272 (R. Mani vs Shanmugham and 2 others),
11. 1991 (2) L.W 272 (R. Mani vs Shanmugham and 2 others).
Comparative Citations:
2016 (5) CTC 329, 2016 (3) MWN(Civil) 212, 2016 (4) LW 750,
Court Held – The Rent Controller had considered all aspects and rejected application – Only infirmity in order is that parties are not given opportunity to put forth their case – Inspite of filing affidavit of undertaking before the Apex Court stating that second Petitioner will not induct any third party in property, third party Petitioners have filed application under Order 21 Rule 96 to 100 of CPC claiming right over property – The Rent Control Appellate Authority had also rightly observed that the Rent Controller could have passed similar order after giving opportunity to both sides – Order of the Rent Controller is liable to be set aside only on ground that application is not numbered and opportunity is not given to parties to put forth their case – Order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding matter for numbering application and giving opportunity to both parties is just and proper – No reason to interfere with order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority – Petition dismissed.
(Paras 13, 14)
Cases Referred:
1. 2011 (6) SCC 385 (Atma Ram Builders Private Limited vs A.K. Tuli and Others),
2. 2003 (3) MLJ 445 (S. Parameshwaran Pillai vs The Deputy General Manager, Tele Communications, Trichy and Others),
3. 2002 (3) MLJ 500 (N. Bacherlal vs S. Subhash Chandra Bose),
4. 1973 (2) MLJ 55 (C. Kuttappa Nair and another vs S.S.A.Shahul Hameed and Others),
5. 2002 (1) SCC 662 (N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and Others) vs Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd and Others,
6. 1998 (4) SCC 543 (Shreenath and anther vs Rajesh and Others),
7. Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and Another (1997) (3) SCC 694),
8. 1997(3) SCC 694 (Brahmdeo Chaudhary vs Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another),
9. 2014(1) MLJ 222 (Duraisamy Naidu (died) and Others vs Sivaprakasa Mudalir and Others,
10. 1991 (2) L.W 272 (R. Mani vs Shanmugham and 2 others),
11. 1991 (2) L.W 272 (R. Mani vs Shanmugham and 2 others).
Comparative Citations:
2016 (5) CTC 329, 2016 (3) MWN(Civil) 212, 2016 (4) LW 750,
Comments
Post a Comment