PADMINI JAYASUNDAR Vs. N S CHANDRASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DECREE-holder in R.C.O.P. No.344 of 1986, on the file of District Munsif, Coimbatore, is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE schedule building which is non-residential is in the possession of the respondent herein and the same was let out to him on a monthly rent of Rs.300. At the time when the tenancy commenced, a sum of Rs.3,000 was paid as advance. In the eviction petition, it was alleged by the decree-holder, petitioner herein that she is running a business at Madras by name Anglo French Pest Control, and that she wanted to shift her business to Coimbatore in her own premises. It is said that she was requesting the respondent herein to vacate the premises and handover vacant possession. It was further alleged in the eviction petition that she is not running the business in her own premises, and she is not in occupation of any building of her own either at Coimbatore or at Madras. She therefore, requested the respondent to vacate the premises for her own occupation, for which a reply notice was sent by him on 13.5.1986, agreeing to vacate the premises on 12.9.1986, but he failed to do so. He was postponing the matter, and that is why eviction petition was filed.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the present execution petition was filed by the decree-holder to execute the rent control order as E.P. No.67 of 1992. At that time, the present respondent filed an application as E.A. No.109 of 1993 to declare that the decree passed by the Rent Controller is null and void and the same was obtained fraudulently. In support of the application, he said that the landlady's brother wanted the co-operation of the tenant in getting an order of eviction against the plaintiff who filed the suit as O.S. No.1119 of 1988. The arrangement, according to him. was that the stranger Selvanayagam being a Srilankan Tamil, must be forced to vacate the premises somehow or other, and for the said purpose, an idea was mooted by him, i.e., a petition will be filed that the entire building is in the possession of the respondent and an order of eviction has to be obtained against the present respondent. Even though the said request was turned down, due to much persuasion and promise that the present respondent will be allowed to continue in the premises as a tenant, he yielded to the request. THEREAFTER, the petitioner's brother obtained the respondent's signature in a blank sheet of paper. It is alleged that the landlady's brother, by misusing the same, has obtained eviction order fraudulently. It was further said that the tenant will be moving the appropriate court to have the decree of the Rent Controller declared as null and void. THEREAFTER it was contended that the Rent Controller has not applied his mind in passing the order of eviction and, therefore, it is incapable of execution. The allegation is that the order of eviction has been passed only on the basis of the memo alleged to have been filed by him and the Rent Controller has not applied his mind whether there was a statutory ground for eviction. To support the same, a further contention was also raised that the landlady is not the absolute owner of the entire property, though she is a co-owner. For the reasons stated above, application under Sec.47, C.P.C. was filed to declare that the Order of the Rent Controller is voidable, and the same is ultra vires and, therefore, inexecutable.