PADMAVATHY Vs. ARULMIGHU PACHAIAMMAN TEMPLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed by the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in E.A. No. 8225 of 2010 in E.P. No. 76 of 2010 in O.S. No. 4191 of 2006, dated 29.08.2012.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows:-The subject matter of the property belongs to the respondent-Temple and the petitioner was a tenant in the subject property by putting up a superstructure. Since the petitioner has not paid the fair rent fixed by the respondent-Temple, the respondent issued a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, by terminating the tenancy and filed the suit in O.S. No. 4191 of 2006 for delivery of vacant land. The learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, after trial, decreed the suit and thereafter, the respondent-Temple filed the Execution Petition before the City Civil Court, Chennai in E.P. No. 76 of 2010. During the pendency of E.P., the petitioner/tenant has filed the Application in E.A. No. 8225 of 2010 under Section 47 of C.P.C. and the said Application was dismissed by the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, by an order dated 29.08.2012. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Revision before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the subject matter of vacant site is belonged to the respondent-Temple, a superstructure was put up by the petitioner and she has been in possession of the property for more than 5 decades and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be protected under the City Tenants Protection Act. Though the said defense was rejected, however, during the pendency of the suit, the Government has issued G.O.Ms. No. 456 Tamil Development, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment News, dated 9.11.2007, regarding fixation of fair rent and in the said G.O., the Government has given instruction to HR and CE Department to withdraw all the suits pending and also if any higher volume of rent is received, then, they have to adjust the same with the future rent. The learned Judge, failed to consider the said G.O. However, in the E.P., the petitioner has filed an Application under Section 47 of C.P.C. and submitted that the petitioner and other tenants have made representations to the Commissioner (HR and CE) Department for fixation of fair rent as per G.O.Ms. No. 456 Tamil Development, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment News, dated 9.11.2007 and subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 298, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment News, dated 20.07.2010 and however, till date no order has been passed and therefore, till the passing of any order by the Joint Commissioner, HR and CE Department, the Execution Petition cannot be proceeded and also the Decree is in-executable based on G.O.Ms. No. 406 and G.O.Ms. No. 298. However, the executing Court, without considering the facts, dismissed the Application, which warrants interference of this Court.