Tenants cannot continuously challenge the identification of property in execution proceedings after prior resolutions; improper descriptions do not restrict the enforcement of eviction decrees.

ORDER :

P.B.BALAJI, J.

The judgment debtor, who has been directed to surrender possession, in and by an order dated 12.07.2024 in EP.No.4086 of 2014, is the revision petitioner.

2.I have heard Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel for Mr.R.Muthukumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.Edward Stanley, learned counsel for the respondent.

3.Mr.R.Thiagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the executability of the decree passed by the trial Court is under challenge, especially, since the suit property has not been properly identified. Inviting my attention to the decree, as well as the schedule in the EP, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the description of the property does not satisfy the mandate of Order VII Rule 3 of CPC. He would rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9941 of 2016 dated 03.01.2024 to fortify his contention that when there is no proper description of an immovable property, the decree cannot be executed. He would also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahadev P.Kambekar (Dead) through legal representatives Vs. Shree Krishna Woolen Mills Private Limited, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 505 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the parties are entitled to raise factual issues, such as, how much area has been leased out, how much area is outside the lease, who are the owners of the leased area and the areas adjacent to the leased areas and all other incidental questions can be agitated before the competent Court.

4.Per contra, Mr.M.Edward Stanley, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent is a non-profit Company under the Indian Companies Act and the revision petitioner occupies one specific shop portion at Door No.1, Smith Lane, Anna Salai, Chennai -2. There are five shop portions in the said property, one amongst which was let out to the predecessor in interest of the revision petitioner. He would further state that against all tenants, eviction proceedings have been initiated and three tenants have already been vacated. He would further state that the tenants are colluding amongst themselves, by setting up frivolous defence and obstacles to defeat the legitimate rights of the respondent, the decree holder.

5.In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent has taken me through the various applications filed under Section 47 of CPC, the revisions before this Court, as well as the adverse orders passed against the tenants upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well. He would further state that even the application filed by the revision petitioner under Section 47 of CPC has been dismissed and the challenge to the same by way of CRP.No.2375 of 2024 was also unsuccessful, with the petitioner choosing to withdraw the said revision, pending the EP proceedings.

6.The learned counsel for the respondent would also invite my attention to E.A.No.4 of 2024, which was filed by one Sudharsan, claiming to be in occupation of the suit property, which is claimed to be in the occupation of the revision petitioner as well. The said E.A.No.4 of 2024 has been dismissed, as against which, an appeal appears to have been preferred by the said obstructor. He would also invite my attention to the revision filed by the said Sudharsaan, who is also a tenant in respect of another shop portion, which came to be dismissed by this Court and the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed.

7.It is therefore the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the rev