MAHENDRAN Vs. ARULMIGHU ARUNACHALESWARAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order of the learned X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 12.01.2010 made in E.P. No. 260 of 2003 in O.S. No. 395/1986 directing eviction of the petitioners herein, which decree came to be passed in A.S. No. 658/1988 and confirmed in S.A. No. 801/1992.

(2.) Admittedly, the petition property, namely an extent of 1527 sq.ft. of land comprised in T.S. No. 52 and 51 part in Block No. 6 bearing Devasthanam Plot No. 112-B in Door No. 66, Ramasamy Garden Street, Adyar, morefully described in the plaint schedule to O.S. No. 395/1986, was unauthorisedly occupied by the judgment debtor Nagappan, the father of the revision petitioners. Hence the above said suit was filed for eviction of the said Nagappan and for recovery of possession. After hearing both sides, the learned trial judge, by judgment and decree dated 15.02.1988 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent herein/plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 568/1988. The lower appellate court, after re-appreciation of the evidence and the witnesses, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 15.02.1988 made in O.S. No. 385/1996 and decreed the suit for eviction and recovery of possession. Challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 568/1988, the father of the revision petitioners herein/defendant filed S.A. No. 801/1992 before this Court. After the dismissal of the second appeal, the respondent Devasthanam (decree holder) levied execution by filing E.P. No. 260/2003.

(3.) From 2003-2008, the judgment debtor Nagappan squatted on the property and evaded execution of the decree for eviction and recovery of possession of the suit property. Meanwhile, the judgment debtor Nagappan is reported dead. Thereafter, the revision petitioners were impleaded as respondents 2 and 3 in the EP. According to the petitioners, the said Nagappan died on 27.02.2007, which fact was not intimated to the decree holder or the Executing Court. However, on 21.05.2008, the Executive Officer of the respondent Devasthanam issued a communication to Nagappan extending an offer to make him a direct tenant of the Devasthanam, provided the said offer would be accepted in writing on or before 10.06.2008. Though the said Nagappan is said to have died on 27.02.2007 i.e. before the issuance of the said communication, it is not in dispute that the sons of the judgment debtor, who are the revision petitioners herein, did receive the said communication addressed to their father. They did not choose to accept the said offer within the time stipulated in the communication dated 21.05.2008. However, the first petitioner seems to have submitted a letter belatedly on 27.08.2008 to the respondent enclosing a banker's cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,17,855/- requesting that he should be recognised as a tenant and the said amount should be adjusted towards the arrears of rent and that he was agreeable for fixing the rent at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month from January 2008. The said letter issued in reply to the offer made under the communication dated 21.05.2008, is more in the nature of a counter offer.