M.M.BABU Vs. YOUNG MEN CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is an obstructor, who filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, claiming to be a bonafide tenant and not being a party to the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The said application has been dismissed at the SR stage, holding that the application is not maintainable. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) I have heard Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, for Mr.P.D.Selvaraj, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

(3.) Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the original tenants under the 1 st respondent were carrying on business under the name and style of New Ramakrishna Lunch Home under the 1st respondent, as a tenant. He would further contend that the rent control proceedings were initiated against the erstwhile predecessors in interest of the revision petitioner and eviction came to be ordered in RCOP.No.1299 of 2018. Execution petition in E.P.No.275 of 2021 was filed by the 1st respondent. The petitioner obstructed to the execution and therefore, the 1st respondent took out an application in E.A.No.4 of 2025 for removal of obstruction. The executing Court allowed the said application on 19/8/2025, after hearing the revision petitioner, as well as the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has been dispossessed on 19/9/2025. The revision petitioner filed E.A.SR.No.45179 of 2025 under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, complaining of dispossession. The said application has been rejected as not being maintainable.