V.DEVENDIRAN Vs. SYED JAN MOHAMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE First Respondent has entered appearance through Counsel. The Second Respondent remained absent in the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Hence, dispensing with the service of notice on the Second Respondent, this Civil Revision Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself, since purely on legal issue the Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of.

(2.) THE submissions made by Mr. Venkatachalapathy, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and by Mr. M. Balasubramanian, learned Counsel for the First Respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel contended that the Order Appealed against could not be construed to be an Order contemplated under sub -clause (2) of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act since the same came to be passed in an adjudication regarding the claim of the obstructor under Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C. de hors Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority committed an error in dismissing the Appeal without going into the merits of the Appeal, simply holding that the Appeal is barred by sub -clause (2) of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In support of his contention that such an Appeal does not come under the mischief of sub -clause (2) of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 the learned Senior Counsel has relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Fathima Automobiles v. P.K.P. Nair and another, AIR 1985 Mad. 318 and a judgment of a learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in Balrqj Singh v. Ajit Singh, AIR 2005 Raj. 120. Of course in the second of the judgment cited by the learned Single Judge, the case was dealt with by a Civil Court and not by the Rent Control Court or Rent Control Appellate Authority. However, the ratio decided therein is sought to be applied to the case on hand as it was held there in that dismissal of the Application filed by the obstructor for adjudication of his claim in respect of the property regarding which the Decree had been passed can be challenged in the Appeal. The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred to above squarely covers the point in issue. When a similar issue arose before the Division Bench, it held that when a third party offers resistance by obstructing execution of an Eviction Order claiming right on himself without claiming a right derived from the judgment -debtor, such a claim should be adjudicated upon under Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C. and that when such an Order is passed the aggrieved party can file an Appeal under Order 21, Rule 103, C.P.C.