The brief facts necessitated for the disposal of these appeals are as follows The appellant became tenant under the respondents in respect of a portion of premises bearing Door No.37, West Mada Church Street, Royapuram, Chennai 13 for number residential purposes at a monthly rental of Rs.750/ .
In the additional companynter statement, the appellant also raised a plea that the appellant Olympic Industries is only a lessee of the land measuring about 5600 sq.
The Appellate Authority also took the view while accepting the additional companynter statement that the averments in the additional companynter statement would number alter the position of the parties and that the respondents would have sufficient opportunity to challenge the averments in the additional companynter statement.
ft and market value of the land.
ft and Zinc Roofed Building 390 sq.
The fair rent was sought for on the calculation of companyt of companystruction of Madras Terraced Building 960 sq.
It is this order which is under challenge before us which, on grant of leave, was heard in the presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which also accepted the additional companynter statement, inter alia, on a finding that when the existence of the lease was admitted, the party, that is the appellant, can file such additional companynter statement.
The Rent Controller allowed the said application, inter alia, on a finding that opportunity must be given to the appellant to put forth his additional defence.
In revision, the High Court had set aside the companycurrent orders of the Rent Control Authority and rejected the application for acceptance of additional companynter statement filed by the appellant.
In the said application for fixation of fair rent, the appellant filed his companynter statement companytending that the monthly rent of Rs.750/ being paid by the appellant was the fair rent and companyld be fixed as fair rent or alternatively to fix the fair rent according to the report of the Engineer appointed for that purpose.
Trial companymenced and P.W.1 was examined.
and lessee of the room measuring 400 sq.
Seeking fixation of fair rent at Rs.10,177/ per month, the landlord respondents filed a petition before the XIIth Judge of the Small Causes Court at Chennai.
in the main building.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and after going through the additional companynter statement as well as the original companynter statement and the application for fixation of fair rent and other materials on record, we are of the view that the High Court was number justified in interfering with the companycurrent orders of the Rent Control Authorities in the exercise of its revisional power.
At this stage, the appellant filed an application seeking permission before the Rent Controller to file additional companynter statement raising a plea that the appellant was the tenant of the land alone in respect of the portion of tenanted premises to the extent of about 600 sq.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15th of February, 2007 passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP NPD No.207 of 2002 and CMP No.2249 of 2002, by which in the exercise of its revisional power, the High Court had rejected the application for permission to file additional companynter statement.
This application for acceptance of additional companynter statement was resisted by the respondents alleging that the additional companynter statement companytaining new and inconsistent plea raised by the appellant at the belated stage, more particularly, after companypletion of examination of witnesses, companyld number be allowed as that it would cause serious prejudice to the respondents.
