GULUMAYEE AMMAL Vs. SAROJINI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in E.A.No.281 of 2014 in E.P.Mo.209 of 2012 in RCOP.No.16 of 2003 on the file of Additional Rent Controller / District Munsif, Madurai, dated 19.12.2014.

(2.) The facts of the case: -

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that originally two RCOPs for eviction and fixation of fair rent were filed by Pandi Naidu. After his death, the petitioners were impleaded as legal heirs of said Pandi Naidu. They only conducted RCOPs filed by Pandi Naidu. Similarly, after eviction order, when Sarojini Ammal filed RCAs and CRPs, the petitioners only conducted the case as landlords. The Rent Control Authority is only Tribunal and it is not a Civil Court and provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable. It is necessary to implead all co -owners in rent control proceedings. All the legal representatives having interest and title over the petition premises are only petitioners and they were conducting the case from the date of death of said Pandi Naidu. The petition in E.A.No.281 of 2014 filed by Sarojini Ammal to decide whether said Krishnamoorthy petitioner in RCOP.No.75 of 2006 is one of the legal representatives of Pandi Naidu and determine whether Execution Petition is not maintainable without impleading all the legal representatives of Pandi Naidu. The said Krishnamoorthy is not the legal representative of Pandi Naidu. He claims to be husband of one Marammal, who is daughter of Pandi Naidu through his first wife. Whether the said Krishnamoorthy is legal heir or whether he has any title in the petition premises cannot be decided by Execution Court. It is well settled that all the co -owners or all the legal heirs of original owner need not be party to the rent control proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments and prayed for allowing the revision.