THIRUGNANASAMBANDAM Vs. SUNDARAMURTHY CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent Kaliaperumal filed a suit for specific performance in respect of the suit property based on an agreement for sale dated 19.09.1992 in O.S.No.2/2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore against Thirugnanasambandam, namely the petitioner herein. In the said suit, Thirugnanasambandam, the revision petitioner herein, besides resisting the prayer for specific performance, made a counter claim for recovery of possession of the suit property from the plaintiff therein. After trial, the trial court decreed the suit for specific performance and dismissed the counter -claim made by Thirugnanasambandam by its judgment and decree dated 28.1.2010. The said decree was confirmed by the appellate judge, namely the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Cuddalore in A.S.No.30/2010.

(2.) AS against the decree of the said court dated 29.03.2011 made in A.S.No.30/2010, Thirugnanasambandam preferred a second appeal in S.A.No.777/2011 on the file of this court. This court, by its judgment dated 30.04.2013 allowed the second appeal filed by Thirugnanasambandam, dismissed the suit O.S.No.2/2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Cuddalore filed by Kaliaperumal and decreed the counter -claim made by Thirugnanasambandam as defendant in the said suit and directed Kaliaperumal to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to Thirugnanasambandam and also to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.450/ - per month from the date of plaint till delivery of possession.

(3.) MEANWHILE , one Sundaramurthy Chettiar, the first respondent in the civil revision petitions, preferred an application on the executing side as unnumbered E.A.No.__/2013 in E.P.No.199/2013 in O.S.No.2/2005 under Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 CPC claiming that he had become a tenant under Kaliaperumal (the judgment debtor) by virtue of a written rental agreement dated 16.09.2013 for a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/ - per month and paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ - as deposit; that as he apprehended steps for forcible eviction being taken, he filed a suit in O.S.No.252/2013 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore for permanent injunction against the said Kaliaperumal (the judgment debtor); that in the meanwhile Kaliaperumal suffered a decree for recovery of possession in the counter -claim made by Thirugnanasambandam in O.S.No.2/2005 on the file of Sub Court, Cuddalore; that the order for effecting delivery passed by the Executing court on 22.11.2013 in E.P.No.199/2013 was not binding upon him and that he, having become bonafide tenant without the knowledge of the suit, his possession should be protected and only a symbolical delivery could be ordered. He was also prepared to attorn the tenancy in favour of the person, who shall be the actual owner as per the orders of this court.