B KRISHNAKUMARI Vs. R SUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first and second defendants in the suit are the revision petitioners. The revision petition is filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India for direction against the learned District Munsif, Coimbatore to pass orders in I. A. No. 2044 of 2007 in O. S. No. 1913 of 2007 before passing orders in I. A. No. 2005 of 2007 in O. S. No. 1913 of 2007.

(2.) THE revision petitioners are the landlords of the shop facing north in the ground floor of the building, having Door No. 280, Cross Cut Road, Coimbatore and measuring 400 sq. ft. and the respondent is the tenant on monthly rental basis, in occupation of the building under a lease deed dated 1. 4. 2003 from the first petitioner. The petitioners have filed a suit in O. S. No. 1891 of 2007 praying for an order of injunction against the respondent from subletting or inducting third parties into possession of the suit property. The respondent/tenant has filed O. S. No. 1913 of 2007 on 3. 9. 2007 praying for a decree of injunction restraining the revision petitioners/landlords from interfering with the possession of the suit property except under due process of law. It is the case of the respondent/ tenant in the abovesaid suit that he is running a textile cloth business under the name and style of Shree Vasundra textiles, apart from doing finance business. In respect of certain deposits collected from various third parties, the respondent was unable to repay and there was a complaint given by deposit holders to Economic Offences Wing-II, coimbatore pursuant to which he was arrested and immovable properties worth several crores were attached. The demised portion under his possession was also kept under lock and key by E. O. W. II, Coimbatore. 2 (a ). It is his case in the said suit that he moved the special Judge under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act,1997 (in short TNPID Act), Chennai by filing a petition in o. A. No. 26 of 2007. Along with that, he also filed I. A. No. 86 of 2007 for appointment of a Commissioner to take inventory of the stock from the petition mentioned property and sell the same in public auction. The learned Special Judge, chennai has appointed a Commissioner for the said purpose and the Commissioner also executed the warrant and handed over the key of the suit property to the respondent on 1. 9. 2007. However, it is the case of the revision petitioners/landlords that the Commissioner who has taken inventory on 11. 8. 2007 and stated to have handed over the key of the shop to the respondent's counsel, has put a new lock on the shop keeping the key with him. Therefore, according to the revision petitioners, the respondent/tenant is not having possession of the shop. While the respondent has stated that along with the suit in O. S. No. 1913 of 2007 he also filed I. A. No. 2005 of 2007 on 3. 9. 2007 for temporary injunction restraining the landlords from interfering with his peaceful possession over the shop on the basis that the advocate Commissioner has handed over the key to him on 1. 9. 2007 as stated above, the revision petitioners, contradicting the said averment of the respondent, have stated in their suit that the possession is not with the respondent/tenant, based on the other aspect of the commissioner's report. It is, under those circumstances, the petitioners who are the defendants in O. S. No. 1913 of 2007 have filed the application in I. A. No. 2044 of 2007 under Order 26 Rule 9 C. P. C. for appointment of a commissioner to note down the existing stock and articles lying in the petition mentioned premises and to take photographs, and to file a detailed report. 2 (b ). In the said application, the respondent herein was heard and it was adjourned for hearing the counsel for the petitioners. According to the petitioners, in the meanwhile, the application filed by the respondent in i. A. No. 2005 of 2007 in O. S. No. 1913 of 2007 for interim injunction was heard and posted for orders on 12. 10. 2007. The case of the petitioners is that the injunction application cannot be ordered unless orders are passed in the application filed by the petitioners for appointment of advocate Commissioner in I. A. No. 2044 of 2007 in O. S. No. 1913 of 2007. It is in this view of the matter, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of india.

(3.) MR. R. SUBRAMANIAN, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that inasmuch as the advocate commissioner's report filed by the Commissioner appointed by the Special Judge under TNPID Act, Chennai is interpreted by the petitioners and the respondent in different way and while the petitioners have stated that the respondent is not in possession, the respondent claims to be in possession of the building on the basis that the key was handed over to him by the advocate Commissioner, in fairness, the Court below should have heard the application filed by the petitioners for appointment of an advocate Commissioner in i. A. No. 2044 of 2007 before passing any order in the injunction application filed by the respondent herein in i. A. No. 2005 of 2007.