C.R.P.No.2422 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on 19.04.2023

Delivered on 01.09.2023

CORAM:

The Honourable MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

C.R.P.No.2422 of 2021

and C.M.P.No.18403 of 2021

T.K.Jambu

...Petitioner/Respondent

/Petitioner/Petitioner

(Decree Holder / Landlord)

-Vs-

Dhanasekaran (Civil Dead)

...Respondent/Petitioner

/Respondent/Respondent

(Judgment Debtor / Tenant)

1.Kasthuri

2.Venkatesan

3.Ganesan

4.Suguna

5.Shenbagam

...Respondents/Petitioners

Proposed Respondents

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

of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 10.08.2021 made in

E.A.No.30 of 2018 in E.P.No.79 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 on the

file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.

For Petitioner

: Mr.S.Senthilkumar

1/20

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

C.R.P.No.2422 of 2021

For R1 to R5

: Mr.R.Prabhakaran

for Mr.K.Balasubramaniam

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and

decreetal order order dated 10.08.2021 made in E.A.No.30 of 2018 in

E.P.No.79 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 on the file of the Principal

District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.

2.The brief facts, which are necessary to decide this Civil

Revision Petition, are as follows:-

2.1.The Petitioner is the landlord. He has filed a petition in

R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 under Section 10(2)(i)(iii)(3)(iii) of Tamil Nadu

Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The

Respondent/Dhanasekaran was the tenant. The property was purchased by

the Revision Petitioner herein as per sale deed dated 22.01.1987 from one

Pounammal. Subsequently, the said Dhanasekaran was inducted as tenant

in the month of January, 1988. The Respondent as tenant paid Rs.2,000/-

(Rupees Two Thousand only) to the Revision Petitioner/landlord as

advance. As per the terms of the lease, the tenant has to pay the electricity

2/20

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

C.R.P.No.2422 of 2021

service connection charges. Stage by stage, the rent was increased and on

1997 the monthly rent was Rs.400/-. The Respondent had been paying the

rent without any let or hindrance. The Respondent had been carrying out

sale of vegetables in the leased out premises. The Respondent had not

been continuously paying rent thereby he had committed wilfull default.

Therefore, the landlord has filed R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 to vacate the

tenant from the demised premises on the ground of wilfull default and

owner's occupation. The tenant resisted the same. He filed counter

denying the allegations made in the petition. After due enquiry,

R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002 was decreed in favour of the Revision Petitioner on

24.04.2017. In continuation of the order passed in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002,

the Revision Petitioner/landlord has filed E.P.No.79 of 2017 seeking

delivery of possession of the property. At that stage E.A.No.30 of 2018

was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant in R.C.O.P.No.5 of

2002. That petition was opposed by the learned Counsel for the Revision

Petitioner/landlord. In the execution petition stage, the legal heirs of the

tenant Dhanasekaran had filed petition to include them as Respondents in

E.P.No.79 of 2017 on the ground that the whereabouts of the original

tenant Dhanasekaran is not known to the family members. Therefore,

3/20

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

C.R.P.No.2422 of 2021

invoking the provision civil dead under Section 108 of the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner seeks

to bring on record the legal heirs of Dhanasekaran as Respondents in

E.A.No.30 of 2018 in E.P.No.79 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 2002.

Aggrieved by the same, the Revision Petitioner had approached this Court

to set aside the order of the learned Principal District Munsif in E.A.No.30

of 2018 in E.P.No.79 of 2017 in R.C.O.P.No.5 of 200