The court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 despite alternative remedies not being efficacious.

The landlord is the Revision Petitioner. The Revision Petitioner had succeeded before both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in the execution proceedings initiated by him. Subsequently, a third party filed M.P. No. 313 of 2005 seeking to implead himself in RCOP No. 1523 of 2004 and to set aside the ex parte order of eviction.

2.Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said third party was originally the Judgment Debtor, whose application under Section 47 CPC had been dismissed and the same was confirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thereafter, the Petitioner initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant in possession and obtained an order of eviction. However, at the stage of taking possession, the said Judgment Debtor set up a claim as though possession had been handed over to him by the tenant and filed the present impleading petition along with a petition to set aside the ex parte eviction order, which came to be allowed and was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

3.Learned counsel for the Petitioner, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in P. Janakiraman vs. N. Uma Devi and others reported in 1999 (1) MLJ 276, contended that even where a statutory appeal is available, this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the alternative remedy is not efficacious, the injustice is apparent, and there is manifest miscarriage of justice.

4.In view of the above submissions and the facts placed on record, this Court is satisfied that the Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable, notwithstanding the Petitioner having lost the remedy of regular revision under Section 25 of the Act.

5.Accordingly, the objections raised by the Registry are overruled, and the SR stage petition shall be numbered. Post the dispense with petition on 26.02.2026.