VELUTHAI Vs. E.K.K.SHAIDDU MOHAMMED (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenants, who have suffered order of eviction in R.C.O.P.Nos.3 and 5 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manaparai, are the revision petitioners in these Civil Revision Petitions.

(2.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed as against the order of delivery in E.P.Nos.50 and 51 of 2011 passed by the learned District Munsif, Manaparai.

(3.) The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: 3.1.One K.Mohamed Nazeem, represented by his power of attorney agent, E.K.K.Syed Mohamed, filed R.C.O.P.Nos.3 and 5 of 2008 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Manaparai, for evicting the revision petitioners on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for a long period. The eviction petition was instituted by the landlord through his power of attorney agent, who is none else than the respondent herein. During the pendency of the petition for eviction, the respondent herein purchased the property from the owner by a registered sale deed dated 16.10.2008. Though the property was purchased by the power of attorney agent, namely, the respondent herein, the eviction proceedings continued by the landlord, represented by the power of attorney agent. The eviction petitions in R.C.O.P.Nos.3 and 5 of 2008 were allowed on 10.03.2011. It is not in dispute that the order of eviction has now become final, as there was no further appeal by the tenants, namely, the revision petitioners. It is to be seen that the respondent herein while purchasing the property, mentioned about the pendency of the proceedings initiated by the landlord in respect of the properties leased out not only to the revision petitioners, but also to other tenants and got all the rights of the landlord to prosecute the proceedings further and collect all the rents, that are due from the tenants. 3.2.The respondent herein filed execution petitions in his name as assignee and purchaser of the demised property, not only against the revision petitioners, but also against other tenants, who had got lease from the landlord in respect of other shops. In the execution petitions, the respondent herein clearly stated about the sale deed, under which he got the right as landlord. The execution petitions were resisted by the tenants on the ground that the respondent did not disclose the transfer of the property in favour of the respondent by the original owner and that no notice for attornment was received by the revision petitioners. The respondent was also put to strict proof of genuineness of the sale deed obtained by the respondent. Since the respondent continued the proceedings as power of attorney agent and that he is not a bona fide purchaser for value, during the pendency of the petition for eviction, the maintainability of the petition is questioned. Though the revision petitioners had not raised any specific defence in the counter before the Executing Court about the validity of decree, it was argued at the time of hearing by stating that the eviction order, obtained before the Rent Controller without any intimation about the change of ownership, is not appropriate and that the power of attorney agent has no right to continue the proceedings, which were originally instituted by the respondent's vendor. However, the Executing Court ordered delivery of the property and allowed the execution petitions. Aggrieved by the said order, the above Civil Revision Petitions have been filed. Against the order in E.P.No.50 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2008, C.R.P.(MD)No.757 of 2014 is filed and against the order in E.P.No.51 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2008, C.R.P.(MD)No.428 of 2014 is filed.