LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-1270

S. SELVARAJ Vs. GOWRI AMMAL (DECEASED)

Decided On June 21, 2018
S. SELVARAJ Appellant
V/S
Gowri Ammal (Deceased) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly, the revision petitioner is a tenant and the respondent/landlord is a decree holder. The respondent/landlord filed a petition in R.C.O.P.No.2906 of 1997 on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai, dated 28.06.2000 to evict the revision petitioner. The learned Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the revision petitioner/tenant, against which, the revision petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.515 of 2000. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. Challenging the same, revision petition in C.R.P.No.1534 of 1999 has been filed by the revision petitioner/tenant and this Court, by order, dated 03.04.2000, confirmed the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Pursuant thereto, the respondent/landlord filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.570 of 2017 to execute the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller.

(2.) During the pendency of the Execution Proceedings, the revision petitioner filed an application in EASR.No.75273 of 2017 before the Execution Court, on the ground that the Execution Proceedings is not maintainable, as the respondent has got only 1/7th share, which is lesser extent and the Executing Court, after giving an opportunity to the revision petitioner, rejected the Execution Application at the SR stage itself. Being aggrieved against the said dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the Tenant.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent/landlord has got only 1/7th share, since he has been allotted 1/7th share in the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.5834 of 2000, whereas, he is occupying more than 1/7th share. Therefore, he cannot file the Execution Petition for a larger extent of the property. The Executing Court failed to consider this aspect. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Revision Petition to set aside the order of rejection passed by the Executing Court in EASR No.75273 of 2017 in E.P.No.570 of 2017 in RCOP.No.2906 of 1997, dated 22.12.2017.