Review Application No.97 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 08.11.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Review Application No.97 of 2023

1. Prashanth Kumar J. Jain

2. Kalpesh Kumar A. Jain

... Petitioners

Vs.

Aziz Snack Bar

... Respondent

Prayer : The Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule-1 r/w Section 114 of

Code of Civil Procedure, to review the order dated 02.02.2023, made in

C.R.P.No.4597 of 2017 on the file of this Court.

For Petitioners

: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan

Senior Counsel

Ms.P.Veena Suresh

For Respondent

: Mr.R.Sundaramurthy

ORDER

This petition has been filed to review the order dated 02.02.2023,

passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.4597 of 2017, thereby allowed the Civil

Revision Petition and directed the Execution Court to number the application

filed by the respondent under Section 47 of C.P.C., and pass orders on merits

and in accordance with law.

Page 1 of 6

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

Review Application No.97 of 2023

2. The respondent filed Civil Revision Petition challenging the order

dated 27.10.2017 passed by the learned XVI Judge, Small Causes Court,

Chennai, in E.A.SR.No.36736 of 2017 in E.P.No.23 of 2017 in

R.C.O.P.No.2232 of 2006, thereby rejecting the application filed by him under

Section 47 of C.P.C., as not maintainable. This Court was under impression that

the application filed by the respondent under Section 47 of C.P.C., was rejected

without even numbering the said application. Therefore, this Court remitted the

matter back to the execution Court for fresh consideration.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner rightly

pointed out that the respondent already suffered with an order of eviction on the

ground of owners occupation. The specific ground raised by the respondent

before the Rent Controller/Exeuction Court is that the petition premises consists

of ground floor, first floor and second floor and in all floors there are about 13

shops. In the ground floor, in the front side of the petition premises, there are

two shops situated nest to the entrance of the building. The respondent is

occupying the second shop in the front side of the building. The tenant who was

in occupation of the shop portion next to the entrance of the petition premises

vacated and handed over the vacant possession to the landlord immediately after

filing the rent control proceeding. Similarly the other 11 shop portion tenants

Page 2 of 6

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

Review Application No.97 of 2023

have also vacated their shops after filing the rent control proceding and handed

over the vacant possession, as such from the year 2006, itself the petitioners are

in possesion of the entire ground floor, first floor and second floor of the petition

peremises, which is approximately measuring to an extent of 8000 sq.ft. The

petitioners by making plea that they bonafide requires the petition premises for

their godown purpose, but from 2007 to 2017 till date the petitioners are in

possession of the entire premises except the respondent shop.

4. The above grounds were duly considered by the learned Rent

Contorller and ordered eviction. Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the

respondent filed appeal in R.C.A.No.815 of 2007 on the file of the learned Rent

Control Appellate Authority viz., VII Small Causes Court, Chennai. In the

appeal also, the respondent raised the very same ground and the same was also

dismissed. On the strength of the judgment and decree passed by the learned

Rent Controller, the petitioners filed execution petition in E.P.No.23 of 2017.

While pending the exeuction petition, the respondent once again filed petition

under Section 47 of C.P.C. After considering all the facts and circumstances and

also noted the entire background of the case, the execution Court rejected the

application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C., as not maintainable.

Page 3 of 6

https://www.mhc