M.M. Ismail, J.
1. The tenant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. He took on lease a piece of Vacant land under a Chit dated 26th September, 1957, for a period of three years, for the purpose of putting up a homestead from the respondent herein. The petitioner agreed to have the superstructure removed at the time of the termination of the lease and to pay a rent Rs. 9 per month and, in case he committed default, to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 10 per month. The tenant having committed default in payment of the rent accrued due from 26th March, 1964, the respondent laid a suit in ejectment in O.S. No. 277 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Dharmapuri. The petitioner herein raised various contentions one among which was that the civil Court had no jurisdiction and that, once a vacant parcel of land is taken on lease for the specified purpose of putting up a building and a building has been put up, the land becomes an integral part of the building and the tenant cannot be evicted otherwise than under the provisions of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. This contention was based upon two decisions of this Court, Palaniappa Chettiar v. Vairavan Chettiar (1962) 75 L.W. 21 and Palaniappa Chettiar v. Sheik Mydeen Sahib (1964) 77 L.W. 551. The trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, the appellate Court accepted the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the suit, and that decision of the appellate Court has become final.
2. Thereafter, the respondent filed R.C.O.P. No. 18 of 1967 on the file of the Rent Controller, Dharmapuri. Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner took up the plea that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction. This contention was advanced in view of the fact that during the interval, the Supreme Court had not affirmed the view taken by this Court in the decisions referred to already and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court a different view was taken by this Court itself in Kantian V. Muthiah Chettiar : (1968)2MLJ631 . The Rent Controller took the view that the petitioner herein having originally contended that the civil Court had no jurisdiction, it was not open to him to contend that the Rent Controller also had no jurisdiction and only the civil Court had jurisdiction. In this view, he allowed the petition filed by the respondent and ordered eviction of the petitioner herein. Against that order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred CM.A. No. 46 of 1968 before the appellate Authority, viz., the District Judge, Dharmapuri. The learned District Judge, by his judgment and order dated 28th March, 1969, dismissed the appeal. It is to revise the order in appeal of the appellate authority, viz., the District Judge, Dharmapuri, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, in view of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to order eviction and where only a vacant piece of land is taken on lease for the purpose of putting up a building it is only the Civil Court which will have jurisdiction.
4. Purely from a technical point of view and as a matter of law, certainly the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is well-founded. But the only question is, on the facts and circumstances of this case, is there any justification for this Court interfering with the order of the appellate Authority, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code?
5. The exercise of the revisional powers of the High Court under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, is purely discretionary. The High Court will not take a technical view and necessarily interfere in every case, where an order is wrong and even improper, if such interference will produce hardship or injustice. The revisional jurisdiction of the Court is intended to secure and subserve and ends of Justice and not to deny or defect it. If interference in a particular case will result in hardship or injustice to a party, the High Court will be justified in refusing to interfere in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, even if the order is found to be one without jurisdiction. In this particular case, I have already referred to the fact that, when the respondent moved the civil Court, the petitioner took up the stand that the civil Court had no jurisdiction and, when, subsequently, the respondent moved the Rent Controller, the petitioner took up a reverse stand, though it may be justified on the position of law as it stood then, that the Rent Controller had no Jurisdiction and only the civil Court had jurisdiction. In view of this, interference with the order of the Lower Court in this case will render the respondent without any remedy to obtain possession of the land in question, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has committed default in the payment of rent and the bona fide requirements of the respondent has been admitted. Even if the respondent filed another suit, the petitioner may contend that the same is barred by resjudicata in view of the previous proceedings instituted in the civil Court, and may prolong the proceedings. Hence, in my opinion this is not a proper case in which the High Court should interfere with the order of the lower Court.
6. Over and above this, before the appellate Authority, three points were raised for decision. The first point was whether the tenant was guilty of wilful default in the payment of rent. The second point was whether the claim that the appellant (Respondent) required the premises for his own occupation was a bona fide one. The third point was with regard to the maintainability of the petition before the Rent Controller. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner before the appellate Court gave up the first two points, did not advance any arguments on those points and argued only on the technical point that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction. I am taking note of this aspect as well, for the purpose of declining to interfere in the exercise of my jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code with the order of the Rent Controller as well as the appellate Authority, in this case.
7. Consequently, the civil revision petition fails and is dismissed.