Single judge dismissed a civil revision petition filed under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and CPC Section 115 seeking to set aside eviction orders. The court noted the long standing arrears and squatters, holding no indulgence required after 25 years.
Revision petition dismissed; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 09.01.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 373 of 2015
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2015
1. V.Jaganathan
2. V.Rajeswari ...Petitioners
Vs
1. C.T.Muthuveerappan
2. C.T.Arunachalam
3. P.Meenakashisundaram
4. M.Annamalai Chettiar
5. S.Alagappa Chettiar
6. PL.Vallaiammai Aachi
7. S.Muthuveerappa Chettiar
8. R.M.Sivagami Achi
9. Annapoorani ...Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 6-B of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 read with Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the orders of the Revenue Court/Assistant http://www.judis.nic.in
2
Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli dated 21.10.2010 in E.P.No.105 of 2005 in P.No.32 of 1989 and dismissing the execution application from eviction from the petitioner mentioned land.
For Petitioners : Mr. N.Thiagarajan
For Respondents : Mr. S.Natanarajan for R1 and R2
No Appearance for R3 to R9
O R D E R
The prayer sought for in the present revision petition is to set aside
the orders of the Revenue Court/Assistant Commissioner, Tiruchirappalli
dated 21.10.2010 in E.P.No.105 of 2005 in P.No.32 of 1989 and dismissing the
execution application from eviction from the petitioner mentioned land.
passed an order directing eviction. Consequently, the execution petition
was filed in EP.No.105 of 2005. The Revenue Court by an order dated 21.10.2010, had observed that the petitioners herein have not paid the arrears of rent, even after due opportunities and that when they have offered to pay a part of the arrears, the respondents herein have refused such arrears and therefore, had concluded that the petitioners herein are liable to be evicted.
3
order passed in EP.No.105 of 2005, submitted that the Revenue Court ought not to have allowed the execution petition and they must be given an opportunity to put forth their case to decide the matter on merits. I do not find such a submission attractive.
and that the Execution Court had also allowed the same in the year 2010.
Over all these years, the petitioners herein have been squatting in the premises.
on date, there is huge arrears payable to them and that since the eviction order has become final, no further interference is required. This Court is also in agreement with such a submission.
the premises for the past almost 25 years, even after the eviction order has
been passed, without paying any rents to the respondents herein, no indulgence requires to be extended in their favour. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge in the present Civil Revision http://www.judis.nic.in
4
Petition.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
09.01.2019
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order: Yes/No
hvk
5
M.S.RAMESH.,J
hvk
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 373 of 2015
and
M.P. No. 1 of 2015
09.01.2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present civil revision petition filed under Section 6-B and Section 115 CPC to set aside eviction orders should be allowed.
Whether the petitioners entitled to indulgence after squattng premises for 25 years post-eviction order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
V. Jaganathan and Ors
C.T. Muthuveerappan and Ors
M.S. RAMESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
