S DHARANI KUMAR Vs. NIRMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision has been preferred challenging the order, dated 07.10.2009 made in M.P. No. 497 of 2009 in R.C.A. No. 370 of 2009 on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Cause, Chennai, dismissing the petition filed under Section 23(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

(2.) The miscellaneous petition in M.P. No. 497 of 2009 was filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 23(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 2006 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980, seeking interim stay of the order of delivery of possession passed in E.P. No. 335 of 2008 in R.C.O.P. No. 1536 of 2006 on the file of the Rent Controller / XII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, pending disposal of the R.C.A, on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority / VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

(3.) Mr. M. Kumaraswami, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent, being the party receiver has not obtained leave from the Court, as contemplated under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for dealing with the property and according to the learned Counsel, the Court below has not considered the scope of Order 27 Rule 97 (i) subject to Order 21 Rule 104 Code of Civil Procedure properly, holding that all the co-owners are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property, pending disposal of the Civil Suit. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the tenant was inducted by the revision Petitioner long back, however, without appreciating the facts and circumstance of this case, the Respondent party receiver obtained an order of eviction against the tenant and now trying to implement it against the interest of the Petitioner. With the above pleadings, the revision Petitioner had filed the M.P., seeking interim stay of the order of delivery of possession made in E.P. No. 335 of 2008 in R.C.O.P. No. 1535 of 2006 on the file of the Court below.