Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1718 (MAD)

B. Viswanathan v. Ramalakshmi

2012-04-03

G.RAJASURIA

body2012
Judgment :- 1. Animadverting upon the order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the learned X Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in E.A. SR.No.7226 of 2012 in E.P.No.206 of 2011 in RCOP No.1548 of 2005, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. Synoptically and succinctly, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The revision petitioner was cited as the respondent in the RCOP filed by the respondent herein for eviction. Ultimately, the Rent Controller ordered eviction, as against which appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed, confirming the judgment of the Rent Controller, as against which revision was filed for nothing but to be dismissed, confirming the judgments of both the Courts below. 3. The decree holder filed Execution Petition. While so, in the E.P.No.206 of 2011, an E.A. SR.No.7226 of 2012 was filed by the revision petitioner herein. The lower Court summarily rejected the said application by the following order: "Heard the petitioner's arguments. In view of the order passed in the verified application to set aside the order dated 14.02.2012 in E.P.206 of 2011, this petition shall stand rejected and the execution proceedings shall go on. The office is directed to not to entertain any more application in this execution proceedings." (extracted as such) 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, the revision petitioner preferred this revision on various grounds. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would pilot his arguments setting forth and putting forth the following arguments: The real owner of the suit property is the Chennai Corporation; whereas the respondent posing herself as an allottee of the premises by the Corporation, filed the said Eviction Petition contending as though she authorised one Mani to let her premises and accordingly, she posed herself as the owner falsely and got such an eviction order. 6. The learned counsel while arguing the case, candidly and categorically pointed out that his client entered into the premises only under the said Mani who was examined as one of the witnesses and supported the case of the respondent-Ramalakshmi. When such is the position, my learned Predecessor in CRP(NPD) Nos.2028 and 2194 of 2010 gave a finding thus: "10. 6. The learned counsel while arguing the case, candidly and categorically pointed out that his client entered into the premises only under the said Mani who was examined as one of the witnesses and supported the case of the respondent-Ramalakshmi. When such is the position, my learned Predecessor in CRP(NPD) Nos.2028 and 2194 of 2010 gave a finding thus: "10. Today it is contended by Mr.K.Jayaraman, learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the Corporation which is the owner of the property and that the Corporation had also allotted the property to his wife. But I cannot allow such a stand to be taken in a revision, which would actually run contrary to the stand taken in the counter filed before the Rent Controller. It is needless to point out that a landlord, to come within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Act, need not necessarily be the owner of the property. Once it is admitted in the counter that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant by N.S.Mani, he cannot be today heard to contend that the Corporation is the owner of the property. Therefore, I find no justification to interfere with the concurrent orders of eviction passed by the both the authorities and hence the revisions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed." 7. Hence in this factual matrix, it is clear that the petitioner as such who entered into the premises under Mani admittedly cannot veer round and take pleas quite antithetical to what she committed herself in the earlier proceedings. Setting up title in the third party by the tenant is barred under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Over and above that, this Court also held that even a person who is receiving rent could be treated as a landlord and as such the earlier CRPs were decided. Hence in such a case, before the Executing Court the petitioner was not justified in racking up the matter once again. Proviso to Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC was cited wrongly as it is ex facie intended for the Court which is in receipt of a decree on transfer for execution to pass temporary orders so as to enable the judgment debtor to get suitable orders from the Courts having proper jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Proviso to Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC was cited wrongly as it is ex facie intended for the Court which is in receipt of a decree on transfer for execution to pass temporary orders so as to enable the judgment debtor to get suitable orders from the Courts having proper jurisdiction to deal with the matter. But the facts and circumstances of the case narrated supra would show display and demonstrate that invocation of such proviso of law is totally a misconceived one. De hors the wrong citing of provision of law, there was no merit in the petitioner's contention because already this Court in C.R.P. Referred to supra, negatived the petitioner's contention. As such, I could see no merit in this revision and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.