MUNIYAMMAL Vs. THE RECOVERY OFFICER & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner herein has sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the proceedings in D.R.C No. 13/2007 -DRT -II (Old No.DRC No. 135/2002 at DRT -I, Chennai) dated 09.03.2010 on the file of the First Respondent as well as the consequential communication in D.R.C No. 113 of 2007 dated 07.04.2010 on the file of the First Respondent and to direct the First Respondent to keep all further proceedings in abeyance in D.R.C. No. 113/2007 - DRT -II (Old No. DRC No. 135/2002 at DRT -I, Chennai) dated 09.03.2010 till disposal of the suit filed by the petitioner in indigent O.P. No.85 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) IT is stated by the Petitioner herein that her family had been living in the premises measuring an extent of 981.2 sq. ft., situated in No. 2, Krishnan Koil Street, Vallal Seethakathi Nagar, Chennai -600 001, for the past four generations without any hindrance. However, due to heavy rains, several documents in her possession were destroyed. Subsequently, her husband died on 12.09.1998. Since her possession was sought to be disturbed by one Indira of Pulianthope, Chennai the Petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 1439 of 2000 before the XVIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, against the said Indira and submitted all the documents available with her. The Suit was decreed in her favour on 12.07.2002. However, on 11.11.2002, the First Respondent herein affixed an eviction notice and thereupon, she came to know that the property in question was pledged with the Second Respondent Bank for raising loan and on account of the default committed, the property was auctioned wherein, the Third and Fourth Respondents are successful bidders. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed a Petition and sought for impleading herself in the proceedings in M.A. Nos. 401 to 403 of 2002 in T.A. No. 98 of 1997 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chennai.

(3.) ON 22.09.2003, the Third Respondent, however initiated proceedings through the First Respondent for Physical possession. On an order deferring eviction. However, on 07.08.2009, the applicants in M.A. Nos 401 to 403 of 2002 were dismissed as not maintainable. Thereupon, a fresh eviction notice was issued on 14.09.2009, calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises. The D.R.C. No. 113 of 2007 before the First Respondent. The said application was however, dismissed on 18.02.2010, holding that it is for the petitioner to substantiate her title to the property. The Petitioner claimed that in view of her uninterrupted possession to the knowledge of everyone for more than 12 years, she has perfected her title to the property. Since she could not the Court fee for a relief of declaration of title, she moved the court to declare her as an indigent person. Notice was ordered in the said application to the District Collector, Chennai and the Government Pleader, City Civil Court, Chennai returnable by 29.04.2010. In the light of the above facts, the petitioner approached the first Respondent once again. However, notice was issued in D.R.C No. 113 of 1997 dated 07.04.2010, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Flower Bazaar, Chennai, as regards the Petitioners failure to hand over possession: Consequnent on which, to take forcible possession of the property on 22.02.2010 and deliver the same to the auction purchaser. In the background of this, the Petitioner has approached this Court.