S A KUPPAMMAL Vs. PARTHASARATHY ALIAS GOVINDASWAMY DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above revision petitions are dealt with in common, since they concern a common property and have been dealt with at all relevant points of time in common.

(2.) The petitioner herein has filed two suits, O.S. Nos. 6070 and 6071 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, O.S. No. 6070 of 1971 was filed for a declaration that the first defendant (Pandurangan) was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit land for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants and also for recovery of a sum of Rs. 430/- towards arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and also for future damages. O.S. No. 6071 of 1971 was filed for a declaration that the first defendant (Parthasarathy alias Govindasamy) was a tenant under the plaintiff of the suit land and also for recovery of Rs. 430/- being the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and for recovery of future damages at Rs. 1/- per day from 1-6-1971. It is not necessary at this stage to dwell into the details of the claims of parties on merits. Suffice it to state that on 22-3-1974 (a) O.S. No. 6070 of 1971 was decreed with a declaration that the first defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff of the plaint schedule land marked in red colour in the plan and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants and (b) O.S. No. 6071 of 1971 was also decreed granting a declaration that the first defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff of the plaint schedule land marked in red colour in the plan and for recovery of possession of the same from the defendants. In both the suits, the decrees also granted means profits, past and future. As against the same, the respective first defendants filed A. S. Nos. 18 and 34 of 1975 and by a judgment and decree dated 18-9-1976, the appeals came to be dismissed. It appears that the second appeals filed thereafter also failed and were rejected.

(3.) While matters stood thus, it appears that a declaration was made under S. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 declaring the suit property as a slum area. When execution petitions were filed to execute the decree in the year 1977, objections were raised that the decrees are not executable in view of the said notification and having regard to the provisions contained in S. No. 29 of the said Act, which inhibited such dispossession unless the decree-holder obtained the permission of the prescribed authority under the Act as notified by the Government. The objections were overruled and the execution of the decree was ordered to go on further. The first defendant in each of the suit filed CRP Nos. 309 and 334 of 1979 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court, in its decision made on 17-10-1979: (reported in AIR l980 Madras 246), set aside the order of the executing Court directing delivery of the property holding at the same time "It is however, made clear that the respondent can levy execution of the decree obtained by him after obtaining the requisite permission of the prescribed authority as required under S. 29. With these observations, both the Civil revision petitions are allowed. No costs."