C.R.P.(PD)No.2795 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.08.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN

C.R.P.(PD)No.2795 of 2023

and C.M.P.No.17266 of 2023

B.Dhanapal

.. Petitioner

Vs.

M.Sivalingam

.. Respondent

Represented by his son and Power Agent

S.Balasubramani

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

Constitution of India, against the fair and decretal order dated 05.07.2023

made in E.A.No.4 of 2023 in E.P.No.187 of 2023 in R.L.T.O.P.No.283 of

2021 on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai.

For Petitioner

: Mr.K.Mahalingam

1/7

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.2795 of 2023

ORDER

This revision challenges the order passed in E.A.No.4 of 2023 in

E.P.No.187 of 2023 in R.L.T.O.P.No.283 of 2021, dated 05.07.2023.

2. Eviction was ordered in R.L.T.O.P.No.283 of 2021 on

05.12.2022. The ground on which the eviction was ordered was that there

was no agreement between the landlord and the tenant with respect to the

demised premises. In this particular case, there is no dispute of

relationship between the landlord and tenant. Following the judgment of

this Court in S.Muruganandam vs. J.Joseph, (2022) 2 CTC 291,

eviction was ordered.

3. Against R.L.T.O.P.No.283 of 2021, R.L.T.A.No.24 of 2023 was

presented. However, the petitioner/tenant did not obtain stay of the

eviction. Consequently, the respondent/landlord filed E.P.No.187 of 2023

on the file of the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai and

obtained an order of delivery of possession.

2/7

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.2795 of 2023

4. The record of the Court also shows that the bailiff went to the

suit premises and he was obstructed by the servants of the tenants. Even

then the tenant did not move an application for stay. Thereafter, delivery

was effected on 27.04.2023.

5. After delivery was effected on 27.04.2023, on 28.04.2023, the

learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application under Order IX

Rule 7 of C.P.C. I pointed out that Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C. does not

apply to execution proceedings.

6. Mr.K.Mahalingam, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out

that Order XXI Rule 106 of C.P.C. enables him to file a petition to set

aside the exparte order in execution. He would rely upon Section 39(3) of

the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords

and Tenants Act, 2017. This states that in execution proceedings, notice

has to be issued to the tenant and the execution petition has to be

disposed of within 30 days from the date of the order. His plea is that he

3/7

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.2795 of 2023

was never put on notice, on account of that fact, Section 39 of RLT Act

has been violated and hence, the order of the trial Court has to be set

aside.

7. Under Order XXI of CPC, a landlord is entitled to put the decree

into execution. At the time of putting the decree into execution, the Court

would have to see whether the decree has been passed within a period of

two years. If it has been passed within a period of two years under Order

XXI Rule 22 (1) proviso, a Court can order delivery without notice to the

judgment debtor. Therefore, the learned Judge exercised the power under

Order XXI Rule 22 (1) proviso and had dispensed with notice to the

judgment debtor.

8. Now coming to the point raised by Mr.K.Mahalingam under

Section 39 of RLT Act, notice has to be issued to the judgment debtor in

execution. An harmonious reading of Order XXI Rule 22 read with

Section 39 of R.L.T. Act makes it clear that the notice to the judgment

debtor would be necessary, if and only if, the decree has not been put into

4/7

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

C.R.P.(PD)No.2795 of 2023

execution for a period of two years. This is clear from the fact the RLT

Act gives a further direction that on receipt of notice, the