JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against and order and decreetal order dated 12.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.2697 of 2017 in O.S.No.6196 of 2016 on the file of XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.2697 of 2017 in O.S.No.6196 of 2016 by the learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court on 12.02.2020.

2. The respondent, as the plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.6196 of 2016 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants, their men, agents, representatives or any person or persons through them from carrying out any construction activities in the suit schedule property till the determination of the ownership of the suit schedule property.

3. Petitioners entered appearance in the suit and filed I.A.No.2697 of 2017 for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. That petition was dismissed after contest. Against the said order of dismissal, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit filed in O.S.No.6196 of 2016 is a frivolous suit. Petitioners filed RCOP No.1356 of 2011 against the respondent herein under Section 10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii) and 10(2)(v) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act for eviction. After contest, this petition was allowed and eviction was ordered under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(vii) of the Act. The respondent preferred Rent Control Appeal in RCA No. 244 of 2017 and that appeal was partly allowed on 05.11.2019, but the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller on the ground of wilful default and denial of title was confirmed. The learned Rent Controller has clearly found that the denial of title of the respondents’ (petitioners’ herein) was not bonafide and it is a malafide denial. Petitioners herein produced Exs.P1, P2, P3 and P4 documents before the Rent Controller to show that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Shanmugam. In Ex.P7, respondent stated that Muniammal is the wife of Shanmugam and it shows that the respondent admitted Sugumaran and Sasimaran are the sons of deceased Shanmugam. When the respondent claims that he has been paying rent to Joan Petrisha Joseph, he has not produced any evidence showing that he has been paying rents to Joan Petrisha Joseph. She was not examined as witness in the rent control proceedings. He refused to divulge the details regarding payment of rent to Joan Petrisha Joseph. He has filed petition under Section 9(3) of Rent Control Act to deposit rent in the Court, since there is doubt as to who is the landlord. Primarily on these reasons, learned Rent Controller ordered eviction of respondent from the tenanted premises on the ground of denial of title and on other grounds. As already stated, the appeal filed in RCA No.244 of 2017 was also dismissed. In the said circumstances, the filing of the suit for the relief asked is atrocious and abuse of process of Court. In this regard, he pressed into service the judgment rendered in (1977) 4 SCC 467 (T.Arivandandam ..vs.. T.V.Satyapal and another), wherein it is held as follows:-

“....... The learned Munsif must remember that if on a meaningful-not formal-reading of the plaint it is manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right to sue, be should exercise his power under Or. VII r. 11 C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if clever, drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party searchingly under Order X C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law suits. The trial court should insist imperatively on examining the party at the first bearing so that bogus litigation can be shot down at the earliest stage. ........”

and the judgment in Civil Appeal No.2960 of 2019