Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1995 DIGILAW 248 (MAD)

P. P. Muthu v. State of Tamilnadu and Others

1995-02-27

S.S.SUBRAMANI, SRINIVASAN

body1995
Judgment :- Srinivasan, J. Mr.S.K.Sundaram, Advocate was appearing for the petitioner. At his instance, the matter was adjourned on several occasions. Ultimately, he reported to the court that he had returned the papers to the party with his consent for engaging another counsel. We directed the matter to be posted on 22. 1995 with the name of the party in the cause list. On that day, Mr.V.S. Subramaniam, Advocate appeared before us and stated that he was being instructed by the party to appear and if the vakalat is given to him he would appear and argue the matter. At his instance, the matter was adjourned to this date viz., on 212. 1995. Today, Mr.V.S. Subramaniam, learned counsel states, that the party has not furnished him with the relevant records, nor has he given vakalat to appear in this matter. Hence, he has prayed for being excused for his absence in this case. 2. Another Advocate attempted to ask for an adjournment. We have refused to grant it in view of the repeated adjournments already granted in this case. The party who is in court has made a representation that the matter should be adjourned further in order to enable him to make arrangements for engaging an Advocate. In the circumstances set out, we are not inclined to grant any further time in the matter. 3. We are convicted that this writ petition is only a vexatious and frivolous litigation. The party has been repeatedly engaged in vexatious proceedings and it is a fit matter that action be taken against the petitioner under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act. 4. The facts are as follows: On 24. 1989, the third respondent in the writ petition who is the landlord filed R.C Q.P. No.1338 of 1989 for eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent for the months December, 1988 to March, 1989. On 7. 1989 the landlord also filed M.P. No.693 of 1989 under Sec.11(4) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act tor non-payment of rent. By order dated 26. 1990, the petitioner was directed to deposit into court rents due from December, 1988 to August, 1989 amounting to Rs.2,250 by 17. 1990 and the matter was to be called on 17. 1990. As the petitioner did not make the deposit, the order was passed on 17. By order dated 26. 1990, the petitioner was directed to deposit into court rents due from December, 1988 to August, 1989 amounting to Rs.2,250 by 17. 1990 and the matter was to be called on 17. 1990. As the petitioner did not make the deposit, the order was passed on 17. 1990 directing eviction and granting two months’ time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. The petitioner filed an appeal after some delay. The delay was condoned and the appeal was numbered as R.C.A. No.1088 of 1991. The appeal was dismissed on 212. 1992 as a consequence to the non-compliance of the order made by the appellate authority directing the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent in M.P. No.983 of 1992. Once again, the petitioner was granted one month’s time to vacate the premises. He did not comply with it. The petitioner filed C.R.P. No.2382 of 1993 in this Court. That revision petition was dismissed on 1. 1994. 5. The petitioner filed O.S.No.3414 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court for permanent injunction restraining the landlord from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. That suit was dismissed on 12. 1981. The landlord filed E.P. No.221 of 1994 for delivery of possession. When he obtained orders for delivery, it was obstructed by certain third parties. The court ordered removal of obstruction on 18. 1994 in M.P. No.389 of 1994. The obstructors filed an application in M.P. No.677 of 1994 to set aside that order. It was dismissed on 211. 1994. The petitioner filed Tr. C.M.P. No. 12920 of 1994 in this Court for transferring the execution petition to the file of another court and that was dismissed on 211. 1994. Undaunted, the petitioner filed another Tr.C.M.P. No. 18241 of 1994. That was dismissed on 112. 1994. The petitioner filed an application under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending that the order of eviction was unexecutable as it was unconstitutional. That application in M.P. No.932 of 1994 was dismissed on 212. 1994. The petitioner filed Tr.O.P. No.207 of 1994 before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes for transferring the execution petition. That was dismissed on 1. 1995. 6. That application in M.P. No.932 of 1994 was dismissed on 212. 1994. The petitioner filed Tr.O.P. No.207 of 1994 before the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes for transferring the execution petition. That was dismissed on 1. 1995. 6. In the mean while, the petitioner filed O.S. No.9826 of 1994 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for mandatory injunction to produce eight counter-foils evidencing payment of Rs.3,000 each towards an agreement for sale of property and for permanent injunction not to dispossess the petitioner pending disposal of the suit. That suit is stated to be posted for hearing. 7. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had also filed this writ petition on 212. 1994 challenging the constitutional validity of Sec.l1(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960. According to the petitioner, the said section is unconstitutional as it is opposed to the very object of the Act and inconsistent with proviso to Sec.l0(2)(i) of the Act. 8. Similar contention was raised in Manimudi v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1993)1 M.L.J. 651 and negatived by one of us (Srinivasan, J.) sitting singly. We agree with the view expressed by the single Judge in that case and there is no merit in that contention. 9. However, this case can be disposed of on another ground. We have already set out the fact that the landlord’s petition for eviction was obstructed by third parties and removal of obstruction was ordered by the executing court. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner is not in occupation of the premises in question. Hence, he has no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. Secondly, the order of eviction was passed as early as on 17. 1990. The writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the section only on 212. 1994. The petitioner has been guilty of laches. Thirdly, the petitioner is guilty of filing vexatious proceedings as indicated above. Hence, the discretionary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner. 10. In the circumstances, we dismiss the writ petition with costs. Counsel’s fee Rs.2,000. 11. The Registry of this Courts is directed to forward a copy of this judgement to the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu Vexatious Litigaion (Prevention) Act.