R S RAJAGOPAL CHETTIYAR Vs. K SARASWATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2009 passed by the learned Appellate authority (the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras) in R.C.A.No.958 of 2006 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller (the X Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras) passed in R.C.O.P.No.2390 of 2005.

(2.) IN the petition filed by the landlord, it is stated as follows:-2.1. The petitioner / landlord is the absolute owner of the property in question. The said property was purchased from one Rajammal by a registered sale deed dated 05.07.1996. Originally, the respondent is a tenant under the said Rajammal, who is the vendor of the petitioner and the respondent was carrying on business under the name and style of -Chenbagambigal Coffee- in the petition premises. After the date of purchase, her vendor, the said Rajammal attorned the tenancy of the respondent herein in favour of the petitioner. 2.2. The petitioner further would submit that before the purchase of the petition premises, her vendor Rajammal filed a petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1990 (for short 'the Act') in R.C.O.P.No.2645 of 1992 on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai against the respondent. While so, the respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.1023 of 1997 before the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai, for the deposit of rent and the same was dismissed on 21.07.1998. IN the meanwhile, a suit in O.S.No.7749 of 1997 came to be filed by the respondent against the petitioner and the said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent.2.

(3.) AFTER the dismissal of the rent control petition, the landlord levied execution proceedings before the X Small Causes Court in E.P.No.448 of 2006 for delivery of the demised premises and the same was pending. Since the petitioners obtained stay before the appellate authority, the execution petition was kept pending with continuous endorsements to the effect that stay granted by VII Small Causes Court was in force. Execution Petition was kept adjourned to 31.07.2009. The civil revision petition was presented in this Court on 31.07.2009. The landlord is stated to have filed a caveat before this Court in Caveat No.2248 of 2009 on 25.06.2009 itself. It is stated by the petitioners that the papers pertaining to revision petition were attempted to be served upon the counsel for the landlord Mr.M.Chandrasekaran on 31.07.2009, but he refused to receive notice stating that he was not the Counsel for the landlord.5.1. AFTER the disposal of the appeal, the landlord filed an application before the executing Court to advance the hearing from 31.07.2009 to 29.07.2009 and the hearing was advanced to 29.07.2009 and delivery was ordered on that date. The Court Bailiff proceeded to the demised premises and found the same locked. Hence, petitions for breaking open the door and police aid were filed. The executing Court passed orders to break open the premises and to deliver the demised premises with police aid. On 05.08.2009, the above said orders were executed and the property was delivered to the landlord. The articles and other things available inside the demised premises were removed and they were taken possession by the present petitioners on the same date.5.2. Presently, the petitioners have come forward with a petition in C.M.P.No.2 of 2009 for relief to take appropriate action against the counsel for the respondent / landlady, Mr.M.Chandrasekaran and the husband of the respondent / landlady and deal with them.5.3. In these circumstances, the following points have arisen for consideration in this revision petition:-(i) Whether the requirement of the landlady of the demised premises is bona fide and whether she is entitled for eviction as prayed for?(ii) Whether the prayer contained in C.M.P.No.2 of 2009 has to be granted and whether restitution of the property has to be effected in favour of the petitioner?