MEENAKSHI SUNDARESWARAR DEVASTHANAM Vs. PALANISWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-temple is the owner of the land in question. THE petitioner filed the respective suits against the respondents to evict them from the said land. THE respondents filed respective applications under Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, and, the court below ordered the same. While ordering the respective petitions, the court below has directed the petitioner/plaintiff to sell the respective petition mentioned properties for a particular price, which would be deposited by the respective respondents/ tenants in the court within four months, and the petitioner/ plaintiff has been directed to obtain necessary sanction from the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment before disposing of the suit properties. THE respondents/tenants admittedly deposited the amount in time and filed the execution petitions to get the sale deed executed as per the decree passed under Sec.9 of the City Tenants Protection Act. THE petitioner/ plaintiff opposed the said execution petitions on the ground that the sale deed cannot be executed without getting permission from the Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., as there is a specific clause in the decree to that effect. THE court below accepting the said request of the respondents-tenants held that the petitioner/ plaintiff failed to get the permission from the Commissioner and failure to get such permission cannot be a ground to stop the execution of the sale deed, and directed the petitioner to execute the sale deed. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the above revisions.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the specific clause in the decree to get permission from the Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Board, before executing the sale deed, the court below is not correct in directing the petitioner to execute the sale deed, even without such permission. THE learned counsel relying on Act 2 of 1996 has submitted that the right of the petitioner cannot be enforced, in view of the said amendment to the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1994.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents with a view to get adjournment has submitted that the said Act has been challenged before the Full Bench and the cases are pending before the Full Bench and so these revisions have to be taken up after the disposal of the same. Such a request cannot be accepted. THE learned counsel has not brought to my notice that the respondents-tenants have filed such petition. Moreover, even if the Full Bench of this court accepts the case of the petitioners in those cases, even thereafter, the petitioners can enforce their right in accordance with law.