Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 4454
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, J.
A.T. Kalyani - Appellant
Versus
K.J. Robert (deceased) rep. by its President International Church in India Trust rep. by its LRs. & Others - Respondents
CRP.(NPD)No. 3845 of 2018 & CMP.No. 21414 of 2018
Decided On : 05-12-2018
For the Petitioner:G. Veerapathiran, Advocate.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Rule 16 - Order 21 - Section 11,115,146 and 2(11) - Rent Control Act,1960 - Section 10 - Application - Challenge - Sale Deed – Suit for Land Property - Suit in came to be instituted by an International Church in India Trust represented by its President K.J Robert to vacate and deliver vacant possession against tenants of a property bearing door V.O.C Nagar Anna Nagar Chennai - Suit was instituted by invoking exemption granted under to all buildings owned by Hindus Christians and Muslims public and private Charitable Trust from and out of purview of Rent Control Act - Suit came to be decreed - Appeal as against original suit in was dismissed and same was confirmed in by this Court - As such judgment and decree of eviction had become final - In meantime original tenant Desikn Singh Nadar had sublet his portion of tenant premises to one Mani Nadar who was second defendant in suit - Present petitioner is widow of Mani Nadar - Then plaintiff had filed an execution petition in for recovery of possession in terms of decree - Said execution petition came to be dismissed for default - After almost three years plaintiff church authority had sold suit property to one who are respondents herein through a registered Sale Deed - After sale respondents herein had filed present execution proceedings in - By an order execution petition came to be allowed - As against order of Execution Court petitioner herein had filed revisions in before this Court on ground that respondents herein had no locus standi to execute decree since they are not owners of subject matter of suit property nor are they legal representatives of deceased or successors in office of International Church in India Trust - By an order revisions came to be dismissed - Subsequently petitioner herein had filed another application in again seeking for dismissal of execution petition in as not executable - This application was dismissed by an order and same is under challenge in present - Whether suit land is a poramboke land or property of Church and confirmed ownership of property which is vested with plaintiff International Church of India but they have not decided question as to whether respondents have any locus standi to execute decree and therefore he contended that order passed in execution petition is not sustainable in law - Whether provisions of Rent Control Act itself would apply to instant case? - Held, Court do not find any ground to interfere with impugned order - As suit for recovery of possession of property in question was filed in year in which ex parte decree was passed in year and more than nine years have expired from that date but on one ground or other decree has not been allowed to be executed Court hereby direct executing court to see that vacant possession of subject of dispute is delivered to decree holders within a period of one month from date of receipt/production of copy of this order - In case for delivery of possession any armed force is necessary executing court shall requisition same from Superintendent of Police concerned who shall depute it within forty-eight hours from date requisition is received by him - It is further directed that if any person other than judgment debtor is found in possession he shall be also dispossessed by armed force - Viewed at from any angle and for reasons stated above this Court is of view that order passed by executing court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity - Further following order passed by Apex Court in Court am inclined to pass following order - Petitioners/judgment debtors shall vacate and hand over suit property to respondents within a month from date of receipt of a copy of this order and in event of any failure on part of petitioners to comply with such direction respondents are hereby directed to evict petitioners/judgment debtors or other than judgment debtors with police protection if necessary - Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 09.10.2018 in E.A.No.641 of 2017 in E.P.No.1896 of 2001 on the file of the learned X Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.)
1. When the petitioner herein had filed an application before the Execution Court seeking for dismissal of the execution petition in E.P.No.1896 of 2001 on the ground that the execution petitioners, being private persons, are not authorized to maintain an execution petition since the exemption granted under Government Order, exempting the demised premises by the original plaintiff was not available to private persons in view of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Rent Control Act) and that, in view of Section 10 of the Rent Control Act, the decree of a Civil Court can be executed only by a Rent Control Court, the same came to be dismissed by an order dated 09.10.2018, which is under challenge in the present revision.
2. Heard Mr. G. Veerapathiran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
3. The background on which the petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid application is as follows:
(a) The suit in O.S.No.237 of 1985 came to be instituted by an International Church in India Trust represented by its President, K.J. Robert to vacate and deliver vacant possession against the tenants of a property bearing door No.35, V.O.C. Nagar, Anna Nagar, Chennai. The suit was instituted by invoking the exemption granted under G.O.Ms.2000 to all buildings owned by the Hindus, Christians and Muslims public and private Charitable Trust from and out of the purview of the Rent Control Act. The suit came to be decreed on 18.02.1988. The appeal as against the original suit in A.S.No.28 of 1989 was dismissed on 11.01.1990 and the same was confirmed in S.A.No.1313 of 1990 on 07.09.1990 by this Court. As such, the judgment and decree of eviction had become final. In the meantime, the original tenant, Desikn Singh Nadar had sublet his portion of the tenant premises to one Mani Nadar, who was the second defendant in the suit. The present petitioner is the widow of Mani Nadar.
(b) The then plaintiff had filed an execution petition in E.P.No.1296 of 1993 on 09.01.1996 for recovery of possession in terms of the decree. The said execution petition came to be dismissed for default on 09.01.1996. After almost three years, the plaintiff church authority had sold the suit property to one Muthiah and Selvaraj, who are the respondents herein, through a registered Sale Deed dated 13.11.1998.
(c) After the sale, the respondents herein had filed the present execution proceedings in E.P.No.1896 of 2001. By an order dated 09.09.2004, the execution petition came to be allowed. As against the order of the Execution Court dated 09.09.2004, the petitioner herein had filed revisions in CRP.Nos.2191 & 2192 of 2004 before this Court on the ground that the respondents herein had no locus standi to execute the decree, since they are not the owners of the subject matter of the suit property nor are they the legal representatives of the deceased K.J. Robert or successors in office of the International Church in India Trust. By an order dated 14.08.2009, the revisions came to be dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner herein had filed another application in E.A.No.641 of 2017 again seeking for dismissal of the execution petition in E.P.No.1896 of 2001 as not executable. This application was dismissed by an order dated 09.10.2018 and the same is under challenge in the present revision.
4. Mr. G. Veerapathiran, the learned counsel for the petitioner put forth his submissions on two main grounds. Firstly, he submitted that the suit was filed on the strength of G.O.Ms.2000, which exempts buildings owned by Christian Trust from the purview of the Rent Control Act and since the respondents herein had subsequently purchased the suit property, cannot execute
