Judgment :- This revision petition is filed by the revision petitioners/defendants as against the order dated 9. 2005 in M.P.No.3429 of 2002 in Ejectment suit No.23 of 2002 passed by the IV Small Causes Court, Chennai in dismissing the petition. 2. The trial Court, while passing orders in MP.No.3429 of 2002 in Ejectment Suit No.23 of 2002 has inter alia opined that the revision petitioners /defendants can take all the defence in the Original Ejectment Suit at the time of trial and mere impleadment of Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board shall not yield any fruit in this ejectment suit and resultantly dismissed the said petition. .3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants submits that the order of the trial Court in dismissing the MP.Nos.3429 of 2002 to implead the second respondent Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board as necessary party is contrary to law and evidence and that the second respondent/proposed party, namely, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has only allotted the lands to the revision petitioners and other slum dwellers in the year 1980 and that out of the loan obtained from the world bank, the revision petitioners and other slum dwellers have constructed their houses and, therefore, the suit filed by the first respondent temple is not maintainable perse in law and that the second respondent/ proposed party is a necessary and proper party to the Ejectment suit. Inasmuch as the entire area for which the ejection has been sought for by the temple/first respondent has been declared as slum area by the Government in GO.Ms.No.1117 dated 26. 1979 and G.O.Ms.No.1100H and G.D.Department dated 29. 1980 in respect of T.S.No.105 and parts and moreover, the first respondent temple cannot evict the revision petitioners from their houses without obtaining permission from the second respondent/proposed party under Section 29 of the Slum Clearance Act and therefore, the slum dwellers cannot be evicted and in such circumstances, the second respondent/Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board is a necessary and proper party and, therefore, pray for allowing the revision petition. 4. Contending the contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/ temple submits that the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 29,52,96,103,105/1,105/2,105/3,106 and 107 in Block No.3, S.Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53,54,56,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67 and 70 in Block No.4 belongs to the temple and that the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 29. 4. Contending the contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/ temple submits that the properties comprised in Survey Nos. 29,52,96,103,105/1,105/2,105/3,106 and 107 in Block No.3, S.Nos. 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53,54,56,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67 and 70 in Block No.4 belongs to the temple and that the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 29. 1982 has declared the area for the purpose of development works but the properties have not been acquired by the second respondent Board and the first respondent temple has filed ejectment suit against various occupants and obtained eviction orders from the competent Court and that in ejectment suit Nos.7 to 13 of 1993, the plea raised in these revision petitions having been raised and the same has been negatived and confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.Nos.2074 of 1988, 204 of 1999, 228 of 1999, 267 of 1999, 393 of 1999 and 405 of 1999 etc., and that the second respondent Board/ proposed party is not a necessary party to the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court the Section 29 of Tamil Nadu Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1971 in and by which, there is a restriction on the owner of the land either executing the decree obtained earlier or instituted a suit for eviction against the occupants for a slum by applying pre condition that the owner of the slum area should get the permission of the requisite either by filing the suit or for executing the decree obtained earlier against the occupants without such permission. .6. Admittedly, the first respondent temple has filed Ejectment suit under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act against the revision petitioners directing the defendants therein to quit and deliver vacant possession of the respective suit lands under their occupation, which is morefully and particularly described in the schedule thereunder. The revision petitioners have also filed their written statements. 7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the second respondent/proposed party cites the proceeding of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in Proc.No.LA1(3)/ 6193/99 dated 03. The revision petitioners have also filed their written statements. 7. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the second respondent/proposed party cites the proceeding of the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in Proc.No.LA1(3)/ 6193/99 dated 03. 2004 to the effect that the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has made its stand clear that it has no other option except to drop the scheme partly in respect of T.S.No.105/2 and refund the amount of land cost collected from the allottes and the order of allotments issued pertaining to temple land in T.S.No.105/2 are cancelled forthwith and the money collected from the 28 beneficiaries towards land cost may be refunded to them. 8. Countering this submission, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that this Court in WPMP.No.9931 of 2004 in W.P.No.8441 of 2004 has granted an interim stay in respect of the members of the petitioners’ Association except Serial Nos 6 and 11, namely, Mr.R.Ramalingam and Mr.S.Mohan, and in the said Writ Petition, the subject matter of the land is T.S.No.105/2. 9. Inasmuch as the suit filed by the first respondent/ temple is pending and taking note of the fact that the written statement has been filed by the revision petitioners and in view of the stand taken by the second respondent/proposed party in its proceedings No.LA1 (3)/6193/99 dated 03. 2004 that it has cancelled the allotment orders issued relating to the temple land in T.S.No.105/2, this Court comes to the inevitable conclusion that the second respondent/proposed party Slum Clearance Board is neither a necessary nor a proper party and even without its presence, the trial of the Ejectment suit can go on and the issues in the said suit can be decided particularly and comprehensively and in that view of the matter itself, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. The order dated 9. 2005 made in M.P.No.3429 of 2002 in Ejectment Suit No.23 of 2002 on the file of IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is confirmed. Consequently, connected MP No.1 of 2008 is closed 11. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. The order dated 9. 2005 made in M.P.No.3429 of 2002 in Ejectment Suit No.23 of 2002 on the file of IV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai is confirmed. Consequently, connected MP No.1 of 2008 is closed 11. It is made clear that the revision petitioners / defendants can raise all factual and legal contentions before the trial Court in Ejectment suit and they are to seek recourse to their remedies in accordance with law and, therefore, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the Ejectment suit uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court.