KASTHURI Vs. C SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed against an order made in E.P. No. 243 of 2008 in R.C.O.P. No. 2229 of 1995, on the file of the learned XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai. By the said order, the court below ordered delivery of the petition mentioned property to the landlord/respondent herein. The said order is challenged by the petitioners by contending that the court below has not taken into consideration of the fact that the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller is a nullity on the ground that compromise said to have been entered between the parties in another proceedings in O.S. No. 4357/2002 during the pendency of the eviction proceedings were not in fact entered with consent and on the other hand, it was obtained by fraud.

(2.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the superstructure was put up by them and therefore, the order of eviction passed in respect of the properties belonging to them is not maintainable as the Rent Control Court has got no jurisdiction to order eviction. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the order is a nullity and consequently, the Execution Court ought to have considered the said objection raised by the petitioners in their counter. He also relied on a decision , Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Gobind Ram Bohra, 1990 1 SCC 193 in support of his submission that the question of nullity of a decree can be raised at any stage of proceedings and the court is bound to consider the same.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord submitted that the petitioners have suffered a decree of eviction which has been confirmed by this Court in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 878 of 2002 as early as on 02.03.2006. When a specific finding is given by this court in the above civil revision petition that the denial of title by the tenants does not have any bonafide and when this court has confirmed the order of eviction, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise the very same issue once again before the Executing Court. It is also brought to my notice that the petitioners have filed a Review Petition in R.A. No. 31/2007 as against the orders passed in C.R.P No. 878/2002 and the same was dismissed on 26.04.2007.