Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4635 (MAD)

M. A. Shaul Hameed v. P. Annammal

2011-11-25

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order and decretal order dated 4.8.2011 passed in E.P.No.2 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1987 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Coonoor. 2. The respondent/landlady filed R.C.O.P.No.39 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsif Court/Rent Control Court, Coonoor, for eviction on the grounds of willful default and own use and occupation that was ordered. In appeal R.C.A.No.19 of 2000 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Sub Court), Uthagamandalam, the order of the Rent Controller was set aside. However, the High Court in C.R.P.(NPD)No. 824 of 2003 by order dated 6.8.2010, set aside the judgment passed in R.C.A.No.19 of 2000 and confirmed the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller. 3. Thereafter, the respondent/landlady filed E.P.No.2 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor, for recovery of vacant possession of property Door No.61-A, ‘Pears Cottage’, Moorse Garden, Coonoor, Nilgiris. The revision petitioner/tenant filed counter/objection stating that the execution petition is not maintainable. The main ground taken in the counter is that the revision petitioner/tenant is residing in Door No.62-A, Pears Cottage, and therefore, the execution petition is not maintainable. Further, there is a discrepancy in Door Number as per the sale deed of the vendor of the landlady. The revision petitioner/tenant has no objection insofar as eviction in respect of Door No.61-A, but his possession in Door No.62-A should not be disturbed. This plea was rejected by the execution court placing reliance on the Apex Courts decision in Atma Ram Builders Private Limited - vs. -A.K. Tuli and others reported in (2011)6 Supreme Court Cases 385 and delivery was ordered. Challenging the same the revision petition is filed. 4. Prima facie, this Court is unable to accept the plea of mistake of identity in the property, as the execution petition is filed only with regard to Door No.61-A, Pears Cottage, Moorse Garden, Coonoor and that is the subject matter of the earlier order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD)No.824 of 2003 dated 6.8.2010. The plea of mistake in identity of property has been considered by this Court in the CRP mentioned above at paragraphs 17 and 18 and it has been clarified that the property in question is Door No.61-A, Pears Cottage, Moorse Garden, Coonoor, Nilgiris. The plea of mistake in identity of property has been considered by this Court in the CRP mentioned above at paragraphs 17 and 18 and it has been clarified that the property in question is Door No.61-A, Pears Cottage, Moorse Garden, Coonoor, Nilgiris. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the order dated 6.8.2010 passed in C.R.P.(NPD)No.824 of 2003 reads as follows:- “17. Next, we come to the question of discrepancy in the description of premises. Though, the petitioner, in her chief examination, has stated that Door No.62, Pears Cottage, belongs to her, she has correctly stated in her cross-examination that what she had purchased under Ex.A1 is Door No.61-A, which is the petition premises. Therefore, even if there is some lapse in the chief-examination, she has corrected herself and taken the correct stand in the cross-examination. Therefore, we are not inclined to said much more by the alleged discrepancy. 18. The oral evidence of PW1 denying knowledge with regard to the relationship between her vendor and the respondent were highlighted by the counsel for the respondent. When we take the total perspective of the documentary evidence and the pleadings before us, it is very clear that the respondent had sold the property to the petitioners vendor and continued to be in possession on payment of Rs.500/- per month, which can only be towards rent and after the petitioner purchased the property, the respondent defaulted in payment of the rent and therefore, the Rent Controller was correct in ordering eviction.” 5. The revision petitioner/tenant in his counter/objection filed before the execution court has merely stated certain facts to say that he is residing in Door No.62-A, Pears Cottage, Moorse Garden, Coonoor and the execution petition is not maintainable in view of the discrepancy in the Door Number. The execution petition has been rightly filed only with regard to Door No.61-A, Pears Cottage, Moorse Garden and that is in accordance with the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD)No.824 of 2003 dated 6.8.2010. Therefore, the plea of non existence of Door No.61-A is a fallacious contention. The revision petitioners endeavour is to confuse the issue. The respondent/land lady is seeking eviction only with regard to Door No.61-A, Pears Cottage, Moorse Garden, Coonoor. Therefore, the plea of non existence of Door No.61-A is a fallacious contention. The revision petitioners endeavour is to confuse the issue. The respondent/land lady is seeking eviction only with regard to Door No.61-A, Pears Cottage, Moorse Garden, Coonoor. As per the counter/objection said to have been filed before the execution court, a copy of which has been enclosed in the typeset of papers, if there is any dispute in the identity, in terms of the final order passed by this Court in C.R.P.(NPD)No.824 of 2003, the present plea of the revision petitioner/tenant that there is a mistake in identity does not hold any merit. 6. Finding no merits, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.