SHEIK ALLAUDIN Vs. ANNIBAL THAMILARASI JESINTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE proposed parties who are third parties to the rent control and execution proceedings are the revision petitioners in this revision.

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Pondicherry dated 6. 9. 2005 passed in E. A. No. 145 of 2003 in RCEP. No. 16 of 2003 in HRCOP no. 17 of 1999. The respondent herein has filed the rent control petition in HRCOP. No. 17 of 1999 against one Marie louis Saint John for eviction on the ground of willful default in payment of rent and eviction order was passed on 3. 10. 2001 by the learned Rent Controller/principal District munsif, Pondicherry which was confirmed by the learned chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional District Judge, pondicherry in R. C. A. No. 46 of 2001 by judgment dated 3. 1. 2003. It is stated that the order of eviction has become final. The respondent/landlady has filed E. P. No. 16 of 2003 against the original tenant in March, 2003. It is stated that subsequently, the original tenant who was unmarried and who suffered the decree of eviction died on 14. 7. 2003. The respondent/landlady filed E. A. No. 145 of 2003 to implead the revision petitioners as respondents 2 to 4 in the execution petition. The said petition was filed by the respondent/landlady on the basis that even though the original tenant who was unmarried and issueless died on 14. 7. 2003, the tenant was being accompanied by the proposed parties who are the revision petitioners during the period of litigation. It is also the case of the landlady that the third proposed party, Mohammed Musthafa had participated in the rent control proceedings as power agent of the original tenant, Marie Louis Saint John and the proposed parties are to be impleaded on the basis that they are in physical possession of the premises without any right to occupy, for the purpose of completing the execution proceedings.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller has allowed the said petition against which the third parties have filed the present revision. The reasons adduced by the revision petitioners for assailing the order of the learned Rent controller are that the revision petitioners are in occupation and enjoyment of the house under one Marie Louis saint Simon who has the right of interest over the premises and they had no connection with Marie Louis Saint John against whom the eviction order has been passed. It is the further ground of the revision petitioners that section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply only in respect of the legal representatives of judgment debtors and therefore, taking advantage of the order of eviction against the tenant, the revision petitioners cannot be disturbed. The further ground raised in the revision is that the remedy open to the respondent is to file a suit against Marie Louis saint Simon for partition of the half share in the house. Further, it is the case of the revision petitioners that the respondent has not deliberately impleaded the two male issues of Marie Louis Saint Simon by name Thomas Jacques michel Marie Louis and Jerome Philippe Mathieu Marie Louis, who are the absolute owners of the property in question and therefore, the finding of the Rent Controller and the consequential eviction order passed would not in any way affect the right, title or possession of the said Marie louis Saint Simon and his male descendants under whom the revision petitioners claim to be the tenants.