Decree passed against a dead person is a nullity.

Common Order:

C.R.P. (PD)No.1453/2005 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19. 2005 in M.P.No.186/2005 in E.P.No.180/1999 in RCOP No.177/1991 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. C.R.P.(PD)No.1454/2005 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28. 2005 in M.P.No.518/2005 in M.P.No.186/2005 in E.P.No.180/1999 in RCOP No.177/1991 on the file of the X Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

3. C.R.P.(NPD)No.62/2006 filed under Sec.115 of the C.P.C., against the order dated 111. 2005 passed in E.A.No.4022/2005 in E.P.No.1291/2005 by the IX Asst. City Civil Court, Chennai.

4. As the parties in all the three Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same, common order is being passed to dispose of all the Civil Revision Petitions.

5. The petitioners in C.R.P.No.62/2006 are the Legal Representatives of their deceased mother Pushpamani Ammal. The said Pushpamani Ammal (hereinafter called the landlady) when she was alive filed RCOP No.177/1991 against the respondent in C.R.P.(NPD) No.62/2006 (hereinafter called the tenant) under Sec.10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act, for evicting him on the ground that the tenant committed wilful default to pay the rent in respect of the petition schedule property, namely, house and ground situate in Thiruvalluvar Street, Rajaram Metha Nagar, Chennai-29 for the period commencing from 9. 1987 to 30.11.1990.

6. The RCOP was stoutly resisted by the tenant by denying any landlord-tenant relationship between them. In fact, the tenant affirmed that he has not even seen the face of the landlady in his lifetime and he never paid any rent to her. It is the further case of the tenant in the counter statement that his father occupied the vacant land and put up a hut in the petition schedule property in 1940 and the husband of the landlady permitted the tenant to continue the occupation and put up the superstructure. It is the further case of the tenant that he paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the husband of the landlady for permitting the tenant to occupy the petition premises permanently. This counter statement was filed by the tenant in RCOP No.177/1991 in June 1991. The rent controller allowed the RCOP and ordered eviction of the tenant, against which an appeal was filed in RCA No.148/1995 before the appellate authority and the same was also dismissed. The C.R.P.No.3059/1998 filed by the tenant against the order of the appellate authority was also dismissed by this court on 3. 1999. At the time of the order being passed by this court in CRP No.3059/98, the counsel for the tenant prayed 12 months time for vacating the premises but this court granted 9 months time from 3. 99 to 30.11.99 subject to the tenants filing an affidavit of undertaking within 2 weeks and paying the entire arrears of rent.

7. It is an admitted position that the tenant did not file any affidavit nor paid the arrears of rent as directed by this court in CRP No.3059/98. Therefore the landlady filed E.P.No.180/1999, in which the tenant filed a counter in January 2000 stating that there is an agreement to sell the petition schedule property by the landlady in favour of the tenant and as the landlady did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the tenant filed O.S.No.3946/99 on the file of the 18th Asst. City Civil court, Chennai. As the suit and the application for injunction are pending before the City Civil Court, the tenant contended that E.P.No.180/1999 is to be dismissed.

.8. The tenant filed O.S.No.3946/99 in April 1999 for the specific performance of the contract entered in the year 1999. The landlady entered appearance in O.S.No.3946/99 and filed a written statement resisting the suit claim. On 3. 2000 the tenant was set exparte in E.P.No.180/1999 and delivery was ordered by the execution court. The tenant filed M.P.No.184 and 185 of 2000 for setting aside the exp