S. MUTHUPAL Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the original suit filed this revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2005 in C.M.A. No. 32 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Namakkal, confirming the decreetal order dated 21.07.2003 in I.A. No. 340/2003 in O.S. No. 146 of 2003 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondents.

(3.) The revision petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 146/2003 seeking the relief to restrain the second respondent should not collect rent from revision petitioner and sent to the first respondent. During the pendency of the suit, the revision petitioner has filed I.A. No. 340/2003 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for interim direction not to recover any amount from pension benefit by the 2nd respondent and sent to the 1st respondent. The trial court, after hearing both sides and also considered the legal position of Sections 84 and 88 of Tamil Nadu Housing Board Act 1961, finally held that the main suit itself is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction and also the revision petitioner as a tenant wilfully defaulted in the payment of rent. Therefore, the trial court has dismissed the above said Interlocutory Application filed by the revision petitioner. Aggrieved over the above said order passed in Interlocutory Application, the revision petitioner has preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A. No. 32/2003. The first appellate Court has dismissed the above said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the revision petitioner has filed this revision petition.