1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against the order dated 112. 2007 made In I.A. No.1004 of 2007 in O.S. No.56 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the first defendant in the Suit. The first respondent being the plaintiff in the Suit has alleged that the revision petitioner is trying to evict him forcibly from the suit property. The first respondent herein as per the Plaint is the tenant under the second respondent paying rent regularly. However, based on a mortgage obtained by the revision petitioner herein, the revision petitioner is trying to evict the first respondent from the suit property. He has also alleged that the cause of action arose on 01.01.2001 when the plaintiff took the suit property on a lease agreement and continued his possession and on 04.09.2007, when the first respondent was trying to dispossess the first respondent/plaintiff.

3. Mr. M. Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that there is no cause of action to maintain the Suit. However, it is seen from the averments made in the Plaint that there is a cause of action alleged by the first respondent/plaintiff as stated earlier for the prayer sought for and to maintain the Suit pending before the Court below. The prayer sought for is permanent injunction restraining the first respondent, his men or agent, etc., from in any manner dispossessing the first respondent/plaintiff from the suit property, except under due process of law. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that it is a Suit filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. and also Section 34 of the Securitisation Act. Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. reads as follows:

"The Plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:

.(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action:

.(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, an the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

.(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued but the Plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;

.(d) where the Suit appears from the statement in the Plaint to be barred by any law;

.(e) where it is not filed in duplicate;

.(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 9"

4. It is admittedly a Suit for bare injunction not to evict the tenant except under due process of law. Therefore, I am of the view that the Suit is not barred by law. It is not in dispute that as per Section 34 of the Securitisation Act, no Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any Suit in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or any Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act or under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

5. Here in the instant case, no injunction shall be granted by any Civil Court against the proceedings under the Securitisation Act pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal. The aforesaid provision of law is nothing to do with the prayer sought for in the Suit since the respondent/plaintiff has not sought for an injunction against any proceedings under the Securitisation Act. The prayer of the first respondent/plaintiff is that he should not be evicted forcibly or illegally except under due process of law. He being the tenant of the premises is entitled to seek injunction even against the landlord of the property that he should not be evicted except under due process of law. Hence it is open to the revision petitioner to take appropriate legal action against th