C.BALA ANNADURAI Vs. R.MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the docket order dated 12.10.2018 passed in E.P.No.28 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2012.

(2.) The respondent herein is a land lord. The petitioner herein is the tenant. The petitioner has paid a rent of Rs.1200/- every month regularly to the respondent's husband. But, after the death of the first respondent's husband dated 21.08.2009, the petitioner willfully defaulted in paying the rent amount. The respondent is an aged lady about 72 years old and further she is a stone-deaf. The petitioner taking advantage of these facts committed default in paying the rent. The respondent is depending only on the rental income and on her husband's pension for her livelihood. Further, she had no issues. Hence, she needs help, companion and protection from her sisters's son. The disputed house is also needed for her sister's son for his residence on his transfer. In such circumstance, R.Meenakshi/respondent has appointed her sister Mrs.V.Meenakshi as a power Agent on 11.07.2014 by filing I.A.No.36 of 2014. Based on the false statement, the petitioner herein had already filed an application before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi in O.S.No.564 of 2011 dated 26.09.2011 and got a stay against the respondent in M.P.No.2098 of 2011 dated 26.09.2011. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application in R.C.O.P.No. 5 of 2012 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi for recovery of possession and enjoyment of the property and the same was allowed on 02.03.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application in R.C.A.No.1 of 2018. Again, the respondent filed a petition in E.P.No.28 of 2018 dated 04.06.2018 for recovery of possession as per the order in R.C.O.P.No. 5 of 2012 dated 02.03.2018 that was posted for delivery on 08.10.2018 and on the same day, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.17 of 2018 for stay on the order passed in R.C.O.P.No. 5 of 2012 dated 02.03.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner has again filed an application in I.A.No.27 of 2018 dated 06.10.2018 for advance hearing of stay petition. The delivery order was passed in E.P.No.28 of 2018 dated 12.10.2018 against the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

(3.) In the grounds of revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the order passed by the Rent Controller in E.P.No.28 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2012 is against law and the Rent Controller fails to appreciate the facts that the petitioner has filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2018 and further had filed stay petition in I.A.No.17 of 2018 and the same is posted on 23.11.2018. The Rent Controller has also failed to consider I.A.No.27 of 2018 in R.C.A.No.1 of 2018 for advance hearing of stay petition and it is posted on 22.11.2018. Further, the Rent Controller failed to appreciate the fact when the decree is under challenge in appeal, the execution cannot be proceeded. Hence, the petitioner sought for setting aside the docket order that is passed on 12.10.2018 in E.P.No.28 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2012.