S KANNAMMAL Vs. A RAJAGOPALA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the order dated 26.02.2010 made in RCA. No.22 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2007 made in RCOP. No.124 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is the second wife of late Muthusamy Chettiar who owned a property, however, the respondent herein, filed Rent Control Original Petition in RCOP. No.124 of 2004 against the petitioner, seeking an order of eviction under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(a)(i) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (herein after referred to as "the act"). After the trial, the Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction against the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner herein preferred Rent Control Appeal in RCA. No.22 of 2008. However, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, dismissed the Rent Control Appeal, confirming the order and decreetal order passed by the Rent Controller.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this revision. There was a compromise decree passed in I.A. No.206 of 2004 on 29.03.2004 and a certified copy of the decree was filed as Ex.P1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that suit in O.S. No.448 of 1979 was filed by the respondent herein against Muthusamy Chettiar and others for partition. On 29.03.2004, a compromise memo was filed by the parties to the suit before the Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. Based on the memo of compromise, consent decree was passed by the said court. As per the compromise decree, it is seen that Muthusamy Chettiar died, subsequently, his legal representatives were brought on record. Admittedly, the petitioner herein was not shown as one of the legal representatives of Muthusamy Chettiar. Even the petitioner herein has not claimed status of legal heir of Muthusamy Chettiar. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that pursuant to the consent decree passed by the court below, on 29.03.2004, the property relating to the RCOP. was allotted to the respondent herein. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied on the following decisions: a) In the case of D.Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal reported in 2010 (6) CTC 216 the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 34 has held as follows: