LAKSHMI OPTICALS,E N MOHANASUNDARAM Vs. N RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the seven tenants (respondents in E.P. No. 847 of 1979) in H.R.C. No. 3274 of 1976 pending on the file of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, seeking transfer of the said execution proceedings to the file of the XI Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, to be heard along with O.S.No. 5394 of 1979.

(2.) The brief facts of the case which led to this transfer petition are as follows: One, M. Ramakrishnan as landlord filed the above H.R.C. No. 3274 of 1976 for eviction of 21 tenants inclusive of the seven petitioners herein from the shops occupied by them as tenants, on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The landlord and the tenants inclusive of the seven petitioners herein entered into an agreement on 18th January, 1979, under which the landlord agreed to demolish and reconstruct the shops, each with some specific dimensions, after obtaining the sanction of the plan and getting all necessary materials therefor on or before 18th April, 1979 and in default, as per the agreement the tenants were to continue their occupation of the shops on the same terms and conditions as before, and also could restrain the landlord, by an injunction, from seeking to evict them in execution of the abovesaid order of eviction. In pursuance of the said pre-decretal agreement, the petitioners herein and some other tenants and the landlord filed a memorandum of compromise before the Rent Controller, stating that they had arrived at a mutual agreement and that they had consented for an order of eviction being made granting the tenants time till 31st July, 1979, to vacate the premises in their occupation. Taking into consideration the unrebutted evidence of P.W. 1, the documents Exs. P-l to P-28 relied on by the landlord and the consent of the parties, the Rent Controller passed his final order allowing the petition and ordering eviction as prayed for against all the tenants, but granting time till 31st July, 1979 for vacating the premises. As the petitioners herein entertained an apprehension that the landlord would not comply with the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement entered into between them and that the landlord might seek the execution of the abovesaid order of eviction without notice to them, they filed a suit O.S. No. 5394 of 1979 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, for a declaration that the order of eviction is not an executory one and for an injunction. Along with the said suit they also filed an application for an interim injunction against the landlord restraining him from executing the eviction order. It is further said by the tenants that the landlord filed E.P. No. 847 of 1979 even before the expiry of the time granted and obtained a warrant for possession, deliberately suppressing all the material facts and hence they moved the Court of Small Causes for stay of the execution petition and the said stay petition is pending. Besides, the tenants have also filed an application under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, in the said Court for enquiring into the executability of the order of eviction in view of the pre-decretal agreement. The grievance of the tenants is that the landlord with the deliberate view of rendering the suit filed by the tenants infructuous, is insisting on the Rent Controller to proceed with the execution of the order of eviction without any enquiry with reference to the objection raised by the tenants relating to the executability of the order. Hence, they have filed this petition for transfer of the above execution petition to the file of the City Civil Court for being heard along with O.S. No. 5394 of 1979.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. M.R. Krishna Iyer, learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants, that the issues involved in the execution petition and in the above suit, are the same, viz., whether the order of eviction passed by the Court of Small Causes (Rent Controller) is executable, whether the City Civil Court has also jurisdiction to order delivery of possession as the Rent Controller (Small Cause Court) has, under Section 18 of the Act and whether under these circumstances, the execution petition could be transferred to the City Civil Court for disposal along with the suit.