@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Tenant who is the petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.1815 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Controller, XIV Small Causes Court, Madras, is the revision
petitioner.
2. Application filed by the petitioner was one to restore the amenities u/s 17 of the Rent Control Act. Along with the application, the petitioner also
took M. P. No. 441 of 1998 for interim restoration of the amenities. It is the case of the landlord that the said interim order was not communicated
to him. On receipt of summons in R.C.O.P., the landlord entered appearance on 29.10.1998 and thereafter he found that interim direction has
already been given by Rent Controller for restoration of amenities. The landlord therefore filed a petition to vacate the interim orders on 2.11.1998
and the said application is pending consideration. It was posted on 13.11.1998 and it was found on that date that the petitioner had filed
M.P.No.616 of 1998 before the trial court for restoration of the amenity at his own costs and the said petition was allowed by lower court on
10.11.1998. The said application was also allowed without notice to the landlord. It is seen that on the application filed by the tenant viz. M.
P.No.616 of 1998, no orders were passed by the Rent Controller for some time and therefore the tenant filed C.R.P.No.3139 before this Court
for a direction to the Rent Controller to dispose of the M.P.No.616 of 1998 at an early date. A direction was also issued by this Court for early
disposal. On the basis of the direction, an order was passed in M.P.No.616 of 1998, permitting the tenant to have the electricity restored at his
own costs. When the landlord came to know about it, he moved a clarification petition in C.R.P.No, 3139 of 1998. This Court held that the
direction to dispose of M.P.No. 616 of 1998 only means that disposal must be in accordance with law. The clarificatory order was also produced
before lower court and since no action was taken on the same, landlord filed. M. P.No. 51 of 1999 to restore M.P.No.616 of 1998 to pass fresh
orders after hearing him. The Rent Controller dismissed M.P.No.51 of 1999 holding that the earlier order itself was one in accordance with law
and M.P.No. 616 of 1998 is not liable to be restored.
3. Landlord filed R.C. A.No. 120 of 1999 against that order before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority set aside that
order and held that M. P. No.616 of 1999 has to be restored to file and both parties must be heard. It is against the said order, the tenant has
come to this Court with this revision.
4. Since caveat was entered by the respondent, I heard the revision at the admission stage itself.
5. After bearing counsel on both sides, I do not find any merit in this revision. M.P.No.616 of 1998 was filed by the tenant to direct the 2nd
respondent to restore the supply of electricity to the petitioner''s residential portion at his own costs and thus render justice.
6. I do not find that such an application itself is maintainable u/s 17 of the Rent Control Act. It is admitted that no orders were passed by the Rent
Controller for some time and only pursuant to my direction in C.R.P. No. 3139 of 1998, an order was passed, allowing the application. When the
landlord came to know about that order, he rushed to this Court, seeking a clarification to my order. I clarified my order by stating that my earlier
direction is only to dispose of the application at an early date and disposal must be in accordance with law. Even though the clarification order was
also produced before the Rent Controller, he did not restore M.P.No, 616 of 1998 since it has already been disposed of by him. Therefore, the
landlord filed MP.No.51 of 1999 to re-call the order which was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 18-2-1999. While disposing of M.P.No.51
of 1999, the Rent Controller said that interim restoration of amenities u/s 17(3) requires no notice according to the settled law. The Rent Controller
further found that it is almost an ad interim order, ordering for restoration of amenities according to the hardships of the petitioner being a basic
amenity. This order was challenged by the landlord before the Appellate Authority, which set aside the same, which is challenged in this revision,
7. It is true that when interim order is passed u/s 17(3), the landlord need not be heard. But, before passing an order, the Rent Controller is also
duty bound to see that whether the application u/s 17(5) of the Act, itself is maintainable, In Krishnaraj v. M.Karunakaran, 1988 (1) L.W. 86, a
learned Judge of this Court has considered the scope of Section 17(5) of the Rent Control Act, Of course his Lordship has considered the scope
of final order u/s 17(4) of the Act, Why I am giving importance to the said decision is, an interim order cannot go beyond the scope of main order
u/s 17(4) of the Rent Control Act. While interpreting Section 17(4), the learned Judge held thus,
On a, plain reading of the said provision, it is clear that the direction to restore the amenities can be passed only against the landlord and there is
no provision to enable the tenant to restore the amenities by himself and recover the cost from the landlord, the reason being the said order is
executable under S. 18 of the Act. In case of default made, by the landlord in restoring the ameni-ties, it is open to the tenant to execute the order
under S. 18 of the Act"".
If this is the scope of an order passed u/s 17 of the Act, the I.A. cannot go beyond what is contemplated under the main Section. The petitioner
wanted to restore amenities at his own costs. According to the landlord, the tenant has committed default in payment of electricity charges due and
it is the Department which cut off the supply of electricity to the petitioner and he is not responsible for the same. In view of the said contention,
there is no scope for invoking Section 17 of the Act, at all. In the decision in S. Pattabiraman Vs. S.P. Chandrasekaran and Others, , I have taken
a view that for invoking the provisions Section 17 of the Act, an amenity must have been withheld by the landlord. If the service connection is
disconnected by the Electricity Department due to the default of the tenant in not paying the electricity charges, that will not come u/s 17 of the Act.
As I said earlier, the definite case of the landlord is, the tenant has not paid electricity charges due to the Department and has come forward with
the present application as if be has cut off amenities. The relief sought for in, M.P.No.616 of 1998, is not coming within the scope of Section 17 of
the Act since no direction is sought for against the landlord. When my order was brought to the notice of Rent Controller, the Rent Controller
refused to act on the same oh the ground that the earlier order passed by him itself is in accordance with law. The approach of the Rent Controller
is not correct. He should have heard the landlord before passing the order atleast after production of my order on the clarification petition. By
refusing to hear the landlord and confirming his earlier views, the Rent Controller has acted beyond Section 17 of the Rent Control Act. The said
mistake committed by the Rent Controller was corrected by the Appellate Authority in holding that the landlord also should have been heard since
serious contentions are raised by him in the petition.
8. It is also true that when an interim order is passed, coming within the scope of Section 17 of the Act, the landlord need not be heard. Even then
it is only a discretion of the Court, whether to hear the landlord or not In this case, the landlord has already entered appearance long before
M.P.No.616 of 1998 is filed. In that view of the matter, passing an order behind the back of the landlord was not proper. The illegality committed
by the Rent Controller was rightly rectified by the Appellate Authority by allowing the appeal.
9. An argument was also taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Order in M, P, No.616 of 1998 had not been appealed against
and the landlord has appealed only against M.P.No.51 of 1999. I do not find any substance in the said argument.The Rent Controller refused to
restore M.P.No.616 of 1998 only by virtue of his order in M. P.W.51 of 1999.
10. In the result, I do not find any merit in the revision and consequently, the same is dismissed with costs. Connected C.M.P, is also dismissed.
