A M NOUSHAD Vs. M JAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following reliefs:

(2.) Petitioner is the 2nd defendant in OS No. 678 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The above suit has been filed by respondents 1 to 4 for the reliefs of demarcation of boundaries and also for permanent prohibitory injunction. Ext. P1 is the copy of the plaint in the above suit. Admittedly, these four respondents had suffered orders of eviction on various grounds under the Rent Control Act on an application moved by the present petitioner conjointly with some others, the landlords of the buildings. The eviction ordered by the Rent Control Court, it is not disputed, has become conclusive and final. A number of proceedings before the execution Court and other forums had been agitated by the parties setting forth one right or the other over the buildings and properties covered by the Rent Control proceedings. Some of the buildings covered by the orders of eviction have already been delivered over to the landlords in the execution proceedings. Since there was some delay on the part of the execution Court in delivering over the remaining buildings covered by the orders of eviction, the landlords approached this Court filing a writ petition for issuing appropriate orders / directions to the execution Court to expedite the proceedings to give them the benefit of the orders of eviction. That writ petition, numbered as WP (C) 5267 of 2009, was disposed by judgment dated 02/03/2009 directing the execution Court to ensure that the execution petition is finally disposed of within a period of three weeks from the date of that judgment. The judgment rendered by this Court was challenged by way of a Special Leave Petition by respondents 1 and 3 in the present writ petition, who among others suffered the orders of eviction in the rent control proceedings. Special Leave Petition, numbered as SLP No. 7783 of 2009, was disposed by order dated 01/04/2009 by the Apex Court vide Ext. P11 order. It is profitable and worthy to reproduce the brief Ext. P11 order, which reads as hereunder:

(3.) Ext. P1 suit filed by the defendants was pending as on the date of Ext. P11 order passed by the Apex Court. It is not disputed that the petitioners in the SLP gave an undertaking before the Apex Court, and in the light of Ext. P11 order, they are enjoying the grace period to continue in occupation of the buildings till 31/01/2010, the last day fixed for surrender. Though the SLP has been filed only by two among the tenants, it is needless to point out, that in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court, which was challenged in the SLP, whoever be the tenants impleaded in that proceedings, the execution Court was bound to dispose of the execution proceedings within the time limit fixed by this Court, that is, three weeks, which had been later extended subject to the undertaking given by the petitioners in the SLP. Though Ext. P1 suit has been pending as on the date when Ext. P11 order was passed, and the undertaking was given only by two of the plaintiffs therein, it has to be pointed out that the orders of eviction passed by the competent Court has become final and conclusive, and the extended period is only for completion of the execution proceedings to give effect to the order of eviction and also surrender or vacation of the building either through Court or otherwise by the tenants. So much so, it is crystal clear that none of the tenants bound by the orders of eviction, can raise any challenge in surrendering vacant possession of their leaseholds and their occupation must cease by 31/01/2010. In Ext. P1 suit, which had been filed at an earlier point of time, the tenants have canvassed a case that they have obtained the assignment of land by way of pattas and that has to be demarcated and the boundaries of that land has to be fixed. An additional relief claimed by them was to restrain the landlords from disturbing or dispossessing them by executing the orders of eviction passed against them by the Rent Control Court. The landlords resisted the suit claim by filing written statement. In their written statement, among other contentions, they have contended that the suit is barred by res judicata as the claim of title set up over the suit property on the basis of the very same documents had been pressed into service in the rent control proceedings to deny the title of the landlords. According to the landlords, that denial of title canvassed by the tenants was found against. The landlords, after settling of the issues by the Court applied for deciding issue No.2 as to whether the suit is barred by res judicata as a preliminarily issue. The learned Munsiff considered the question and after hearing both sides, passed Ext. P8 order deferring that issue for consideration with other issues at trial. Propriety and correctness of Ext. P8 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.