Dismissed

L.Prema v. Devadoss

Madras HC3 Apr 2014CRP(MD)/214/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision filed by a sub-tenant challenging the dismissal of her application for stay and condonation of delay in an appeal against an eviction decree. The High Court held that the earlier unchallenged executing court order operates as res judicata, preventing the sub-tenant from filing an appeal, thus the revision is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; connected Miscellaneous closed; no costs to parties.

L.Prema Vs Devadoss — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.04.2014 CORAM:

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶4

CRP(NPD)(MD)No.214 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶5

L.Prema : Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.Dr.Devadoss

¶8

2.G.Murugesh

¶9

3.G.Rajamurugan

¶10

4.Ravimathi

¶11

5.Bakkialakshmi

¶12

6.Jayalakshmi

¶13

7.A.Kalaivani

¶14

8.A.Valarmathi @ Divya : Respondents/Respondents/Respondents

¶15

Prayer:- Civil revision petition is filed under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 r/w Article 227 of the Constitution, against the fair and decreetal order, dated 18.09.2013 and made in I.A.No.486 of 2011 in RCA SR No.2158 of 2011 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Trichy.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan for Mrs.U.Nirmalarani

¶17

For 1st respondent : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This Memorandum of Civil Revision is directed against the fair and decreetal order, dated 18.09.2013 and made in I.A.No.486 of 2011 in RCA SR No.2158 of 2011 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Trichy.

¶20

2.The revision petitioner herein is the petitioner in the above said application in I.A.No.486 of 2011 and the appellant in RCA SR No.2158 of 2011, whereas the first respondent is the second petitioner in RCOP No.91 of 1986 and the respondents 2 to 8 are the respondents 4 to 10 in the Rent Control Original Petition.

¶21

3.One K.Raja Chidambara Reddiar (since died) had originally filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RCOP No.91 of 1986 as against one M.P.V.Gurusamy Nadar (since died) under sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), (b), 10(2)(iii) (vi), 10(3)(a)(i)

¶22

¶23

& 14(1)(b) ) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, for passing an order of eviction against the respondents, directing them to put the petitioner in possession of the petition mentioned property and for costs.

¶24

4.During the pendency of the said petition, K.Raja Chidambara Reddiar had passed away and therefore, the second petitioner Dr.D.Devadoss was impleaded as his legal representative, pursuant to the order, dated 09.07.1992 passed in I.A.No.155 of 1988.

¶25

5.Similarly, the respondent M.P.V.Gurusamy Nadar had also passed away and therefore, the respondents 2 to 8 have been impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent in pursuant to the order, dated 11.03.1993 passed in I.A.No.9 of 1991 and subsequent to their impleadment, the third respondent G.Ayyasamy had also passed away. Hence, the respondents 9 and 10 were impleaded as his legal heirs. Under this circumstance, an ex-parte order was passed in RCOP No.91 of 1986, dated 18.02.2010 as against the respondents therein on all grounds, which resulted in a direction to the respondents to vacate and hand over the petition mentioned properties to the second respondent, namely Dr.D.Devadass on or before 18.04.2010.

¶26

6.Since, the respondents had not complied with the direction of the learned Rent Controller, the second petitioner, being the legal representative of the first petitioner K.Raja Chidambara Reddiar, had initiated the execution proceedings in E.P.No.241 of 2010. Under this circumstance, the petitioner herein, who is a stranger to the Rent Control original petition, claiming herself to be the sub-tenant under the prime tenant had filed an application in E.A.No.652 of 2010 under sections 47 and 151 of CPC as against the second petitioner Dr.Devadoss as well as the remaining respondents seeking the relief of a decree and judgment in her favour that the order passed in RCOP No.91 of 1986 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Trichy is nullity, not valid against the statute and not executable against her as it is not in congruence with the Act.

¶27

7.That application was resisted by the first respondent herein, who is the second petitioner in RCOP No.91 of 1986.

¶28

8.After hearing both sides, the executing court had proceeded to dismiss the execution application on 18.11.2011, with a finding that the said application is a vexatious one.

¶29

9.As it is manifested from the records that the above said order, dated 18.11.2011 and made in E.A.No.652 of 2010 by the Court of first instance was not challenged by the revision petitioner and therefore, it has become final.

¶30

10.Without challenging the above said order and allowing the said order to remain final, she had preferred an appeal in RCA SR No.2158 of 2011 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal Subordinate Judge), Trichy.

¶31

11.For preferring the said appeal, she has to establish, at the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ instance, as to under what provisions of law or under what capacity, she is filing the appeal. This has not been done so. However, according to

¶32

¶33

the revision petitioner, there is a delay of 535 days in preferring the said appeal. For condoning the said delay, she had, therefore, chosen to file an application in I.A.No.486 of 2011 along with an another application in I.A.No.487 of 2011 seeking the relief of stay of the entire execution proceedings.

¶34

12.Both the applications were dismissed in a common order, dated 18.09.2013 on the ground that as a sub tenant, it cannot be construed that the petitioner has got valuable right and that it could only be seen that the petitioner has failed to prove that there is sufficient cause to condone the delay and that there is nothing to infer that the petitioner is entitled for substantial justice. Rather, what could be seen is that the sub-tenant, who has not got the approval of the landlord is only attempting to start another innings by resorting various strategies.

¶35

13.For arriving at the above said conclusion, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2011)6 SCC 385 [Atma Ram Builders Private Limited vs. A.K.Tuli and others].

¶36

14.The order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, dated 18.09.2013 has been challenged in the present revision.

¶37

15.Since the revision has been preferred against the dismissal of an application in I.A.No.486 of 2011, which appears to have been filed by the petitioner under section 5 and Article 14 of the Limitation Act, the entire back ground history of the case need not be re-iterated.

¶38

16.Heard Mr.Raguvaran Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent.

¶39

17.As afore stated in the opening paragraph, the order of the executing court in E.A.No.652 of 2010 rejecting the claim of the revision petitioner has not been challenged and therefore, the said order remains intact as final order. This order, as per the settled proposition of law, operates as a constructive res judicata, which prevents the petitioner being the third party to the Rent Control Original Petition in RCOP No.91 of 1986 from preferring any appeal, challenging the original decree.

¶40

18.Hence, the dismissal of the petition in IA No.486 of 2011 by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority does not warrant any interference of this court, as the order itself has been passed within the bounds of law.

¶41

16.In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous is closed.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶44

\True copy\

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶46

¶47

The Principal Subordinate Judge,Trichy. Copy to : The Section Officer, VR section,

¶48

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

¶49

+1cc TO MS.NIRMALARANI, ADVOCATE SR.NO.21568

¶50

+2cc TO MR.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, ADVOCATE SR.NO.204523

¶51

CRP.(NPD)(MD)No.214 of 2014 Dated :03.04.2014

¶52

er NA/09/04/2015/P3/6C

¶53

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

L.Prema v. Devadoss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Prema v. Devadoss

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Asokan,S/O.Late.Paramasivam, Vs Pandian Hospital & Medical

S.Arumugapandi, Vs S.Vanniarajan @ Vanniaraja

Madurai Kunniya Vagaiyara Vs K.R.Janakiram

N. Ashish Karwa, Vs a.Pinky Sureka

R.Mamundi Vs N.Kamaraj

M.Munavvara, Vs a.Amanullah