The court reinforced that a valid landlord-tenant relationship must be established for eviction proceedings, confirming that a grant of probate is a right in rem and does not negate independent title disputes.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

The revision petitioner is the legal representative of the judgment debtor in E.P.No.49 of 2003.

2.I have heard Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.S.Magesh Kumar for Mr.M.Umashankar, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 10 in both the revisions.

3.Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that an eviction petition had been filed, alleging landlord-tenant relationship and the said eviction petition was ordered ex-parte. The said application was filed in RCOP.No.33 of 2001 on the ground of willful default. The said eviction petition was filed by one Neelaveniammal, claiming to be the landlord against one K.Parthasarathy, claiming to be the tenant. In the said RCOP, K.Parthasarathy was said ex-parte and the RCOP came to be allowed on 26-07-2001. The said K.Parthasarathy filed an application in M.P.No.544 of 2001, seeking condonation of delay in setting aside the ex-parte order in the RCOP. The same was allowed on 13-02-2004.

4.However, subsequently, M.P.No.97 of 2002, which was filed to set aside the ex-parte order, was dismissed for default on 18-03-2002. The application filed to restore M.P.No.97 of 2002 in M.P.No.352 of 2002 was also dismissed on 10-12-2002. The said Neelaveniammal filed EP.No.49 of 2003 for delivery of possession. In the said execution petition, K.Parthasarathy filed a counter, denying landlord-tenant relationship and also claiming that the property belongs to the Temple (HR & CE Department). Pending the execution petition, the landlady Neelaveniammal died. The revision petitioner claimed that K.Parthasarathy had executed a registered Will on 19-03-2008 and subsequently, he also died on 02-04-2008 and that under the Will the property has been bequeathed to the revision petitioner.

5.In the meantime, the rent control appeal in RCA.No.230 of 2004 filed by the said K.Parthasarathy, challenging the order of eviction in RCOP.No.33 of 2001 was also dismissed as abated on 23-04-2008. In the meantime, the execution petition was taken up and delivery was ordered on 10-07-2009. The son of Neelaveniammal, one Shanmugam filed an application for removal of obstruction under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC. The petitioner filed EA.No.129 of 2009 to bring himself on record as the legal representative of deceased K.Parthasarathy, claiming under the registered Will of K.Parthasarathy. The executing Court allowed the impleading application filed by the revision petitioner and dismissed the application filed for removal of obstruction and consequently, the EP also was dismissed.

6.Parallelly, the Will said to have been executed by K.Parthasarathy in favour of the petitioner was sought to be probated in OP.No.536 of 2009. The sister of the original landlady, Neelaveniammal, one Babuammal filed an application to revoke the Letters of Administration was granted on 02-07- 2010. After contest, the said application for revocation came to be dismissed, upholding the grant of probate in favour of the revision petitioner. The OS Appeal filed against the dismissal of the said application for revocation of the grant, even at the numbering stage, came to be dismissed.

7.In the meantime, as against the orders passed by the executing Court, the contesting respondents, legal representatives of Neelaveniammal filed RCA.No.663 of 2017, challenging the dismissal of removal of obstruction petition in EA.No.116 of 2009 and RCA.No.481 of 2018 against the dismissal of EP.No.49 of 2003. Both the rent control appeals came to be allowed by the Appellate Authority, as against which, the present revision peti