IRTDRANI AMMAL Vs. K P UNNIKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CERTAIN facts are necessary for the purpose of dealing with the question raised in this writ petition. The first respondent on the basis that he is the landlord within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act 1960 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of I960), hereinafter referred to as the Rent control Act filed H. R. C. No. 1533 of 1978 for eviction of the petitioners under the Rent Control Act. One of the grounds urged for eviction was wilful default in the payment of rents. The first respondent took out M. P. No. 1806 of 1978 under section 11 (3) of the Rent control Act to stop further proceedings in H. R. C. ,if the petitioners herein, the respondents in h. R. C. No. 1533 of 1978, did not deposit the arrears of rent. The Controller under the Rent Control Act directed the deposit within a stipulated time. Obviously, the arrears of rent were not deposited and M. P. No. 1806 of 1978 was allowed and consequently an order of eviction was passed in H. R. C. No. 1533 of 1978 on 31-1-1979. The petitioners preferred an appeal to the appllate authority under the Rent Control Act in h. R. A. No. 680 of 1979 and in the appeal they have raised a contention that the area in question has been declared to be a slum within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 (Act No. 11 of 1971), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the petition for eviction without prior sanction, obviously adverting to section 29 of the Act, was not maintainable. The appellate authority went into this question and repelled the same by its order dated 11-8-1980. It must be pointed out that anterior to the order of the appellate authority, on 23-4-1980 the first respondent had obtained an order purporting to be one under section 29 of the act. The appellate authority took note of this order also while repelling the contention of the petitioners. The order under section 29 of the Act seemed to have been revoked by the Chairman, Slum Clearance Board, Madras , and communications in this behalf dated 9-7-1980 and 4-1-1981 formed the provocation for the first respondent to come to this Court by way of W. P. No. 8865 of 1981. In K. P. Unnikrishnan and others v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secy. to Labour and Housing Dept. , and others ,padmanabhan, j. , by order dated 8-7-1983 found that when once an order has been passed under section 29 of the Act, there is no power to cancel the same, and on this basis, the learned Judge declared that the said communications will have no legal effect and the Slum Clearance Board and the interveners in the writ proceedings are bound by the order dated 23-4-1980. The interveners preferred an appeal w. A. No. 549 of 1983 ,s. Poosalingam and another v. K. P. Unnikrishnan and three others, and the Bench of this court to which I was a party, by judgment dated 4-8-1983, dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the learned single Judge.

(2.) SO far as the petitioners are concerned, they allowed the appellate order dated 11-8-1980 to rest without the same being impugned as per section 25 of the Rent Control Act, which is a statutory remedy available to them on stated grounds. The first respondent in the said circumstances had no other alternative ,but to levy execution and he has succeeded in obtaining an order of delivery, got the same, executed and obtained delivery of possession on 28-10-1980 and. the delivery itself has been recorded on 30-10-1980. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of this writ petition with a prayer to quash the order made in execution an a to r an order to restrain the first respondent from interfering with their alleged possession.