Advocates:
['M/S Ramalingam', 'Associates', 'M/S V RAGHAVACHARI', '', 'R - AOS NOT FILED', '', 'PVT NOTICE ON', 'R- SANAVULLA SHERIFF', '', 'PVT NOTICE ON TO R ONLY', 'R - REFUSED', '', 'PVT NOTICE']

C.R.P.No.2369 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.12.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

C.R.P.No.2369 of 2022

and

C.M.P.Nos.12172, 12173, 12175 & 12176 of 2022

S.Prabakaran

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Minor G.Raghavendran

2.Mr.Sanavulla Sheriff

... Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, to set aside the exparte order dated 13.08.2019 passed in

R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2017 and consequentially strike off the Rent Control

proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2017 on the file of Rent Controller /

Principal District Munsif at Vellore.

For Petitioner

: Mr.P.E.Elaya Rajkumar

For M/s.Ramalingam and Associates

For R1

: Mr.Avinash Wadhwani

For Ms.B.S.Mitraneshaa

For R2

: No Appearance

Page 1 of 6

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

C.R.P.No.2369 of 2022

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated

13.08.2019 passed in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2017 on the file of Rent Controller /

Principal District Munsif at Vellore.

2. The revision petitioner states that he is the tenant and the 1^st

respondent is the landlord in respect of the shop measuring of 225 Sq.ft.

situated at Door No.185, Gandhi Road, Vellore Town and Vellore District.

The revision petitioner states that he is running a business in the name and

style of 'Nathan Stores'. The revision petitioner claims that he pays the

monthly rent of Rs.3,000/- regularly to the 1^st respondent / landlord. He is

continuing as a tenant from the year 1968 onwards. While so, the 1^st

respondent / landlord filed R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2017, falsely impleading the

2^nd respondent as tenant in the subject premises. Behind the back of the

revision petitioner, the 1^st respondent secured an order of eviction from the

Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.26 of 2017. Thus, the revision petitioner has

chosen to file the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

Page 2 of 6

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

C.R.P.No.2369 of 2022

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the

revision petitioner is not a party to the Rent Control proceedings and

therefore, the order is not binding on the revision petitioner. When the

revision petitioner is the original tenant in respect of the subject premises,

the institution of rent control proceedings by the 1^st respondent against the

2^nd respondent is untenable and therefore, the Rent Control Proceedings

itself is to be struck off.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the

monthly rent has been paid punctually and the petitioner is possessing the

premises. When he is in possession of the subject premises, the 1^st

respondent is attempting to evict the petitioner in an illegal manner and thus,

the revision petition is to be considered.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent objected the said contention

by stating that, presuming that the 1^st respondent has filed RCOP against the

wrong person, the revision petitioner has already filed a petition under Order

XXI Rule 97 of CPC and the said petition was rejected by the Trial Court.

The objections raised by the revision petitioner was considered by the trial

Page 3 of 6

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

C.R.P.No.2369 of 2022

Court and it was rejected and therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintable.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent drew the attention of this

Court that Execution Petition filed by the 2^nd respondent/landlord was

allowed and delivery of possession was recorded and memo to that effect

was filed and consequently EP was terminated. Thus, the Civil Revision

Petition is not maintainable.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that when the trial court

allowed the Execution Proceedings and further, rejected the petition filed by

the revision pe