S A KUPPAMMAL Vs. PARTHASARATHY ALIAS GOVINDASWAMY DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above revision petitions are dealt with in common, since they 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 City Civil Court, Madras, O.S.No.6070 of 1971 was filed for a declaration that defendant (Pandurangan) was a tenant under the plaintiff, in respect of the suit land recovery of possession of the same from the defendants and also for recovery of a sum of towards arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and also for future O.S.No.6071 of 1971 was filed for a declaration that the first defendant (Parthasarathy Govindasamy) was a tenant under the plaintiff of the suit land and also for recovery Rs.430 being the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and for recovery future damages at Re.1 per day from 1.6.1971. It is not necessary at this stage to dwell the details of the claims of parties on merits. Suffice it to state that on 22.3.1974 O.S.No.6070 of 1971 was decreed with a declaration that the first defendant was under the plaintiff of the plaint schedule land marked in red colour in the plan recovery of possession of the same from the defendants and (b) O.S.No.6071 of 1971 also decreed granting a declaration that the first defendant was a tenant under the of the plaint schedule land marked in red colour in the plan and for recovery of possession the same from the defendants. In both the suits, the decrees also granted mesne past and future. As against the same, the respective first defendants filed A.S.Nos.18 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 so, W.P.No.1230 of 1982 was filed in this Court by One Naziruddin, Muthavalli the Diwan Sahib Burial Ground, the owner of the property, impleading the State of Nadu and the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board as respondents praying for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.378, Housing, dated 2.11.1972, in so far as the petitioner was concerned. It may be noticed that this the notification which made the provisions of the Slum Clearance set applicable to the and rendered the decrees inexecutable without obtaining the permission of the prescribed authority, originally by an order dated 8.6.1982, the Court passed an order as follows: "It is ordered that interim suspension granted by the order of this Court, dated 19.2.1982 and made herein is hereby made absolute and that the operation of the notification G.O.Ms.No.378, Housing, dated 2.11.1972 on the file of the 1st respondent do continue be suspended pending W.P.No.1230 of 1982 on the file of this Court." Taking advantage of the said orders, E.P.Nos.948 of 1982 in O.S.No.6071 of 1971 and of 1982 in O.S.No.6070 of 1971 were filed for effecting delivery of possession in execution the decrees in O.S.Nos.6070 and 6071 of 1971. The first respondent in the execution applications filed their counter affidavit opposing the claim of the petitioners on several grounds. The Court below, by its common order dated 27.4.1983, dismissed the execution petitions. In substance, the view taken by the Court below was that in view of the earlier orders in C.R.P.Nos.309 and 334 of 1979 (since reported in 93 L.W. 143), without complying with the provisions of Sec.29 of the Slum Clearance Act by obtaining the permission of prescribed authority, file decrees could not be executed and possession recovered and Court below also reserved the right of the possession of the same from the defendants and also for recovery of a sum of 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 Govindasamy) was a tenant under the plaintiff of the suit land and also for recovery Rs.430 being the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation and for recovery future damages at Re.1 per day from 1.6.1971. It is not necessary at this stage to dwell the details of the claims of parties on merits. Suffice it to state that on 22.3.1974 O.S.No.6070 of 1971 was decreed with a declaration that the first defendant was a under the plaintiff of the plaint schedule land marked in red colour in the plan and recovery of possession of the same from the defendants and (b) O.S.No.6071 of 1971 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 the same from the defendants. In both the suits, the decrees also granted mesne past and future. As against the same, the respective first defendants filed A.S.Nos.18 and 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 Sec.3 Tamil Nadu Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 declaring the suit as a slum area. When execution petitions were filed to execute the decrees in the year objections were raised that the decree are not executable in view of the said notification having regard to the provisions contained in Sec.29 of the said Act, which inhibited dispossession unless the decree-holder obtained the permission of the prescribed under the Act as notified by the Government. The objections were overruled execution of the decree was ordered to go on further. The first defendant in each of the filed C.R.P.Nos.309 and 334 of 1979 before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court, its decision made on 17.10.1979,set aside the order of the executing Court directing of the property holding at the same time that " It is however, made clear that the respondent can levy execution of the decree obtained by him after obtaining the requisite permission the prescribed authority as required under Sec.29. With these observations, both revision petitions are allowed. No costs." 4. WHILE so, W.P.No.1230 of 1982 was filed in this Court by One Naziruddin, Muthavalli the Diwan Sahib Burial Ground, the owner of the property, impleading the State of Nadu and the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board as respondents praying issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.378, dated 2.11.1972, in so far as the petitioner was concerned. It may be noticed that the notification which made the provisions of the Slum Clearance set applicable to the and rendered the decrees inexecutable without obtaining the permission of the prescribed authority, originally by an order dated 8.6.1982, the Court passed an order as follows: " It is ordered that interim suspension granted by the order of this Court, dated 19.2.1982 and made herein is hereby made absolute and that the operation of the notification G.O.Ms.No.378, Housing, dated 2.11.1972 on the file of the 1st respondent do continue be suspended pending W.P.No.1230 of 1982 on the file of this Court. " Taking advantage of the said orders, E.P.Nos.948 of 1982 in O.S.No.6071 of 1971 and of 1982 in O.S.No.6070 of 1971 were filed for effecting delivery of possession in execution the decrees in O.S.Nos.6070 and 6071 of 1971. The first respondent in the execution applications filed their counter affidavit opposing the claim of the petitioners on grounds. The Court below, by its common order dated 27.4.1983, dismissed the execution petitions. In substance, the view taken by the Court below was that in view of the orders in C.R.P.Nos.309 and 334 of 1979 (since reported in 93 L.W. 143), without complying with the provisions of Sec.29 of the Slum Clearance Act by obtaining the permission prescribed authority, file decrees could not be executed and possession recovered Court below also reserved the right of the petitioner to comply with the requirement of Sec.29 and proceed thereafter. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed C.R.P.No.2642 of 1984 against E.P.No.948 of 1982 in O.S.No.6071 1971 and C.R.P.No.2643 of 1984 against E.P.No.949 of 1982 in O.S.No.6070 of 1971.