CHRISTIAN VELLALAR SANGAM Vs. MINOR JEFFRI SAM BALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order in unregistered E.A.General No. 14969 of 2002 in E.P.No. 211 of 2002 in R.C.O.P.No. 66 of 1998 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Tirunelveli dated 17-12-2002, the petitioner/third party has filed the above Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner Sangham, it is in possession of upstairs in door No. 260, Tiruchendur Road, Palayamkottai. The said properties belongs to Muthiah Pillai Tamil Language Trust. One Jayanth Rhenius got a letter of administration in O.P.No. 515/1996 on the file of the Original Side of this Court and on the basis of it, he had sold the property to the first respondent. The petitioner Sangham which is interested in the Muthiah Pillai Tamil Language Trust, filed O.A.No. 5109/2001 before this Court to revoke the said order of letter of administration. The said application was dismissed. The petitioner filed O.S.A.No. 398 of 2002 against the said order. In the said O.S.A.No.398 of 2002, this Court passed status-quo order in C.M.P.No. 15769/2002 on 25-11-2002. The first respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No. 66/98 against 2nd and 3rd respondents in respect of door No.260, Tiruchendur Road, Palayamkottai. The said R.C.O.P. was allowed. Hence the first respondent took steps to execute the decree in E.P.No. 211/2002. In the said petition the petitioner filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. to entertain the petitioner's lawful obstruction and resistance of the attempt of the first respondent taking in delivery of the property. The first respondent filed an objection to the said application. By the impugned order dated 17-12-2002, the Court below dismissed the said application as not maintainable in law, hence the present Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution before this Court.

(3.) IT is further seen that in the course of rent control proceedings, an Advocate Commission was appointed to inspect the demised premises and he submitted his report. The said report has been marked as a document in E.A.No. 251 of 2002. After inspection, the Advocate Commissioner submitted a report wherein it is stated that the upstairs portion where the petitioner claimed to be in possession was vacant and that there was no traces of enjoyment by anybody. The Commissioner has also mentioned that the entire upstair portion has been damaged and unused for several years. As rightly pointed out, even in the petition filed by the 4th respondent namely E.A.No. 251/2002, the 4th respondent has not mentioned that the premises were being occupied or enjoyed by the first respondent herein. The materials placed would clearly show that the petitioner herein has any semblance of right over the demised premises. Considering the objections raised, the Court below though has not assigned separate number for the petition filed under Order 21, Rule 97, framed necessary points for consideration and considered the claim of both parties and found that it is nothing but a calculated and deliberate attempt to protract the execution of a lawful order passed by the Rent Control Court in favour of the first respondent. A perusal of the certified copy of the order which is under challenge, shows that except the fact that the petition under Order 21, Rule 97 C.P.C. having not been assigned with a number, the learned District Munsif, after determining the relevant issues, considered the case of both parties. Though Mr. G. Subramanian, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that they were not given opportunity to lead evidence and mark documents, a perusal of the certified copy of the order shows that an opportunity was given to the parties and neither of them examined any witness nor marked any document in support of their respective claim. In such a circumstance, I am unable to appreciate the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the Court below considered both the factual and legal aspects before negativing the claim of the petitioner herein. The sequences narrated above would clearly show that the Court below not only considered all the materials, but also exposed the deliberate attempt made by the petitioner herein to protract the execution of the lawful order passed by the Rent Controller.