The court affirmed that an obstructor in eviction proceedings lacks the requisite independent right or title where evidence of collusion and previous judgments disfavor the obstructor's claim.

COMMON ORDER

The revision petitioner is an obstructor, whose applications for noting his obstruction have been dismissed by the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai.

2.I have heard Mr.B.Nedunchelian, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both the revision petitions and Mr.A.Amal Raj, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 in both the revision petitions.

3.Mr.B.Nedunchelian, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would state that the respondents have initiated eviction proceedings in RCOP.Nos.1342 and 1343 of 2016 on the file of the XVI Small Causes Court, Chennai. In the eviction petitions, Section 11(4) application was filed, alleging non payment of rents against the 3^rd respondent. An order of eviction came to be passed in the said proceedings and E.P.Nos.31 and 32 of 2024 were filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against the 3^rd respondent. At the time of attempting to execute the eviction order, the petitioner has filed the application for noting his obstructions under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC in E.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2024. The parties adduced evidence in the said application and after enquiry, considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Rent Controller (executing Court) dismissed the obstruction applications.

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions have been filed.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the subject property was originally owned by K.Pankajavalli Ammal, K.Saravanabavan and R.Kadambari, against whom the petitioner’s father had obtained a decree in O.S.No.9743 of 1977 on the file of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, declaring that he is the absolute owner of the superstructure in the petition premises and that a decree for permanent injunction was also granted in his favour. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the petitioner also filed a civil suit before this Court in C.S.No.282 of 2007 to declare his right by adverse possession against the original owners and the said suit was also decreed on 23.07.2010.

5.However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, behind the back of the petitioner, the father and mother of the respondents 1 and 2, in and by a registered settlement deed dated 25.04.2005, had settled the property in favour of the respondents 1 and 2, who also proceeded to mutate patta in their names. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the property consists of two shop portions, which according to the petitioner, is the subject matter of the decree in favour of the petitioner and the property was let out by the petitioner to a tenant and after the expiry of the lease period, according to the petitioner, he took back possession. The learned counsel therefore state that the respondents 1 and 2 have absolutely no relationship with the tenants of the petitioner or the petitioner for that matter and have mischievously filed eviction petitions before the Rent Controller and obtained eviction orders against the 3^rd respondent.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would also point out that even the 3^rd respondent has clearly taken a defence that he is a tenant only under the petitioner and not the respondents 1 and 2. However, without accepting the contentions of the 3^rd respondent, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, erroneously, the Rent Controller proceeded to order eviction. He would therefore state that the petitioner being the lawful owner of the superstructure, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot execute the decree against the 3^rd respondent and thereby dispossess the petitioner