1. This is a revision against an order of the Rent Controller refusing to file a complaint under Section 476 Crl. P. C. in respect of a receipt filed before his court. In the application by the respondent to evict the petitioner herein two grounds were urged: (i) arrears of rent, and (ii) sub-letting. On the ground of sub-letting the petitioner was evicted. The Rent Controller also gave a finding that there was a default in payment of rent.
With regard to this default in payment of rent, the counterfoil of the receipt book produced by the respondent is alleged to contain sane alterations on which the tenant, who has been evicted, seeks to prosecute the landlord. The Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that it was not expedient in the interests of justice to lay a complaint. An appeal was then preferred to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court also dismissed the appeal. The present revision is against that order of the Sessions Court.
2. The learned advocate, who appears for the respondents, takes a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this criminal revision petition on the ground that it was a civil court which dealt with the application for eviction and as such, the appeal should have been laid before the Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, and the revision, if any here, should have been filed as a civil revision petition. This procedure was not followed in this case, and therefore this petition does not lie on the criminal side.
The decision of a Full Bench of this court inKumaravel v. Shanmuga Nadar, ILR 1940 Mad 762 : AIR 1940 Mad 465 is clear on the pointthat a civil court does not cease to be a civilcourt when it is considering an application madeto it under Section 476 Crl. P. C. and that a revisionought to be filed only as a civil revision petitionunder Section 115 C. P. C. The preliminary objection isupheld and the petition is dismissed.