ORDER :

(Prayer in CRP.PD.No.459/2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order of the learned District Munsiff, Tiruppur, in EA.No.10/2014 in EP.No.109/2004 in RCOP.No.38/2000 dated 19.12.2018.

CRP.PD.No.998/2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair and decreetal order of the learned District Munsiff, Tiruppur, in IA.No.34/2017 in Rev. Petn.No.-- of 2015 in RCOP.No.38/2000 dated 19.12.2018.)

1. These Civil Revision Petitions though filed by two different persons, the petitioners being husband and wife and the issues are interconnected and the respondents are common, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the orders dated 19.12.2018 passed by the learned District Munsiff, Tiruppur, in EA.No.10/2014 in EP.No.109/2004 in RCOP.No.38/2000 and IA.No.34/2017 in Rev.Petn.No.-- of 2015 in RCOP.No.38/2000.

3. For the sake of brevity, the revision petitioner in CRP.PD.No.998/2019 is referred as husband and the revision petitioner in CRP.PD.No.459/2019 is referred as wife.

4. The revision petitioner in CRP.PD.No.998/2019 is the husband and respondent in RCOP.No.38/2000 filed by the 1st respondent in the revision petition and one Basheer Ahamed.

5. The father of respondents 3 to 5 and the husband of the 2nd respondent along with the 1st respondent, filed a petition in RCOP.No.38/2000 before the Rent Controller-cum-District Munsiff, Tiruppur, for eviction. The petition for eviction was filed against the husband who is the revision petitioner in CRP.PD.No.998/2019 on the ground of willful default and for personal occupation. It is stated that the petition premises was originally belonged to the revision petitioner and his wife/petitioner in CRP.PD.No.459/2019. The 1st respondent and the said Basheer Ahamed obtained a Sale Deed from revision petitioners through their Power of Attorney Agent on 04.06.1999 and agreed to be a tenant till they get an accommodation for their occupation. It is the further case of the landlords that the revision petitioners agreed to vacate the property before 15.09.1999 and agreed to pay a rent of Rs.500/- per month if they are unable to vacate the premises within the time agreed. It is therefore contended by the landlords that with effect from 15.09.1999, the petitioner in CRP.PD.No.998/2019 is in possession of the property as a tenant agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as rent on or before 16th of every succeeding month. Though it is stated that for few months, the tenant was paying rent, it is contended that the revision petitioner/tenant refused to pay rent from November 1999.

6. A counter was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP.PD.No.998/2019 in RCOP.No.38/2000 disputing the title of the respondents. It is also stated that the respondents are not the owners of the property and there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the respondents and the revision petitioner/husband. Despite the Sale Deed executed by the revision petitioners in favour of the landlords, it is admitted that the sale is not challenged independently either by filing a suit or by cancellation of the Sale Deed in the manner known to law.

7. After filing counter, the petitioner in CRP.PD.No.998/2019 who is described as tenant in respect of the property as per the subsequent Agreement, did not appear to defend the proceedings. As a result, the petitioner in CRP.PD.No.998/2019 was set exparte. However, detailed order of eviction was passed on merits on the basis of the available materials before the Rent Controller. It is not in dispute that the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller has become final.

8. After the order of eviction in RCOP.No.38/2000, the landlords filed an Execution Petition in EP.No.109/2004 in RCOP.No.38/2000. Without challenging the order of eviction, it appears that the husband filed several applications one after another to st