The central legal point established in the judgment is the finality of the status of the respondents as legal heirs and the inapplicability of the doctrine of merger.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Code of Civil Procedure, to allow this Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.04.2023 passed by the XVI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai in E.A.No.3 of 2019 in E.P.No.451 of 2018 against RCOP No.215 of 2001.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner in E.A.No.3 of 2019 and the Judgment Debtor in E.P.No.451 of 2018 against the order passed in the above said Execution Application on 20.04.2023 by the XVI Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

2. An execution application was filed by the Judgment debtor Ponnusamy to reject the Execution Petition on the ground of non-arraying of themselves as parties with the leave of the Court in the place of Muniammal, the deceased Decree holder.

3. The Learned Execution Court, after hearing both sides arguments and upon perusing the entire records on merits, has held that the petitioner/Judgment debtor having not vacated the petition premises without any sufficient cause, squatting over the property without even paying the monthly rents, not taken steps to pay the monthly rents from the year 2003, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief claimed for and the petition was dismissed. Against which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order passed in the said E.A.No.3 of 2019 in E.P.No.451 of 2018 as mentioned supra by the Judgment Debtor.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor would submit that the respondents herein, who are said to be the legalheirs of the deceased Muniammal, are not the legalheirs of the deceased Muniammal. Therefore, filing of Execution Petition by the said legalheirs amounts to the act of God against the petitioner. He would also further submit that the order of eviction was ordered on 23.07.2003 in R.C.O.P.No.215 of 2001 filed by the deceased Muniammal as against the petitioner/Judgment Debtor. Without seeking leave of Execution Court, the said Execution Application was filed and the order passed is incorrect.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would vehemently argue that the petitioner is a tenant, has no locus standi to file the petition. He filed the said petition in order to deprive the right of the owner of the petition premises and to grab the property. He would also stress upon the fact that the Judgment Debtor suffered a decree of eviction is still in occupation of the property, without paying any rent from 2003 onwards. After several grounds of litigations, the respondents were declared as legalheirs of the deceased Muniammal and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

6. Heard the rival submissions of both sides learned counsels. Perused the materials available on record.

7. In the said Execution Application, no one was examined on either side and on the side of the petitioner eight documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P8. Whereas, on the side of the respondents four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4.

8. Originally one Muniammal, who is the owner of the above said property is not in dispute. She obtained an order of eviction against the Judgment Debtor, viz., Ponnusmy, the present petitioner herein as early as on 23.07.2003, before 10 years, in R.C.O.P.No.215 of 2001. Against the order of eviction, the petitioner/Judgment Debtor Ponnusamy had preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.889 of 2004 and the same was dismissed as abated as landlord Muniammal died.

9. In the RCOP proceedings, the present respondents filed a petition in M.P.No.565 of 2006 sought permission to implead them as legalheirs of deceased Muniammal. It appears that the said petition was dismissed. The present respondents preferred revision against the said order in C.R.P.No.2255 of 2007 was also dismissed, with a permission to the respondents to substantiate their case by producing the original documents before the appropriate authority. Based on the said direction, an application vide M.P.No.370 of 2007 was