CRP No.4147 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15-12-2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

CRP No.4147 of 2022

And

CMP No.21649 of 2022

M.Natarajan

.. Petitioner

vs.

1.A.Vellingiri

V.Ganapathi (died)

S/o.Velappapillai

Palaniyammal (a) Myilathal (Died)

W/o.Late.V.Ganappathi

2.G.Natarajan

3.G.Nanthakumar

4.Manjuladevi

5.G.Harivaratharaj Perumalsamy

(a) Selvam

.. Respondents

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.4147 of 2022

PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the rejected petition under Order XXI Rule 97

of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in CFR No.6618 of 2022 dated

24.08.2022 in EPR No.45 of 2018 in RCOP No.6 of 2004 pending on the

file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Pollachi.

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.Udayakumar

For Respondent-1

: Ms.S.Kanniya

For Respondents-2 to 5 : Mr.Vinoth Raja,

Government Advocate

(Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The present Civil Revision Petition has been instituted

challenging the order dated 24.08.2022 passed in CFR No.6618 of 2022.

2. The first respondent in the revision petition is the landlord and

the second respondent one Mr.Ganapathy was the original tenant, who

expired and the revision petitioner claims to be the tenant of the second

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.4147 of 2022

respondent deceased Mr.Ganapathy. However, the revision petitioner filed

RCA for deposit of rent, which was dismissed by the Rent Control Court.

The first respondent-landlord filed an Execution Petition earlier.

Subsequently the first respondent filed CRP NPD No.908 of 2008 and this

Court allowed the said CRP by setting aside the order passed in IA No.96 of

2007 in RCA No.3 of 2007. The RCA itself was dismissed subsequently

dated 24.04.2018.

3. The EP No.45 of 2018was filed by the landlord and the said

Execution Petition was allowed and a detailed order was passed by the

District Munsif Court, Pollachi on 07.01.2022, directing the respondents to

hand over the possession of the subject property on or before 07.04.2022.

Pursuant to the Execution Petition order, the bailiff, went to the subject

property on 29.07.2022.

4. At that time, the revision petitioner raised an objection that she

is in possession of the property and there was no order of execution against

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.4147 of 2022

the revision petitioner. Under those circumstances, the revision petitioner

moved Execution Court under Order XXI, Rule 97 CPC. In respect of the

said application, the Trial Court raised the question of maintainability and

challenging the query raised by the Trial Court, the present Civil Revision

Petition is filed.

5. The order impugned in the present civil revision petition

reveals that the petition filed by the revision petitioner restricting the

execution of the decree as he is the sub-tenant judgment debtor. The

revision petitioner claimed tenancy right against the judgment-debtor, who

had suffered an order of eviction.

6. The Trial Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court

and held that consent given by the landlord to his tenant for creation of the

sub-tenancy is valid only between the landlord and his tenant and such

consent cannot be used by sub-tenant to create another sub-tenant under

him, so as to bind the landlord.

4/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP No.4147 of 2022

7. In the case of Srikota Sudhakar vs. Mr.Vinod Mohan

[proncounced judgment on 29.06.2012 in S.A.No.261 of 2009], this

Court held that the respondent being a subtenant, who is also an

unauthorised sub-tenant is not entitled to obstruct the delivery of possession

to the decree holder, even