K LAKSHMI Vs. S K SRIDHAR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful Plaintiff, who is not able to get possession of the property even though his suit for recovery of possession was decreed and confirmed by this Court in the Second Appeal, is the revision Petitioner.

(2.) The revision Petitioner filed O.S. No. 2684 of 1996 for delivery of possession of the property, for damages and for future mesne profits. Originally, the suit was filed by the revision Petitioner in this Court in C.S. No. 216 of 1984 against the 1st Respondent only and thereafter, two other Defendants were impleaded at the instance of the first Respondent herein and the suit was transferred to the City Civil Court and renumbered as O.S. No. 2684 of 1996 and the prayer was amended to the effect that the Defendants are to be directed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property and for damages.

(3.) The averments in the plaint filed by the revision Petitioner was that on 23.5.1968, he entered into an agreement of sale with Defendants 2 and 3 and as per the agreement, Defendants 2 and 3 agreed to purchase the property. The property was allotted to the revision Petitioner by the City Improvement Trust. Defendants 2 and 3 filed O.S. No. 3069 of 1976 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for declaration that the revision Petitioner herein was not entitled to receive the balance sale consideration and for injunction restraining the revision Petitioner from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Their suit was dismissed and thereafter, Defendants 2 and 3 filed C.S. No. 387 of 1977 on the file of this Court for directing the revision Petitioner herein to get the conveyance deed form the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and thereafter to execute the sale deed in their favour as per the agreement dated 23.5.1968 and for damages. That suit in C.S. No. 387 of 1977 was allowed to be dismissed for default. In the meanwhile, the said Defendants 2 and 3 allowed the first Respondent herein to occupy the property as tenant and the second Defendant also filed H.R.C. No. 1708 of 1976 against the first Respondent herein for eviction and the first Respondent herein also filed H.R.C. No. 1522 of 1977 under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act for fixation of fair rent. H.R.C. No. 1708 of 1976 filed by the second Defendant for eviction was ordered and H.R.C. No. 1522 of 1977 filed by the Respondent herein for fixation of fair rent was also allowed and fair rent of Rs. 133/- was fixed. But, the decree passed in H.R.C. No. 1708 of 1976 was not executed. The first Respondent herein continued to be in possession of the property and according to the revision Petitioner, he was not her tenant and his possession is unlawful and therefore, he is liable to be evicted.