appeal directing the petitioners to deposit the arrears of rent to the credit of the respective second appeal, the petitioners have to do so till the special leave petition preferred by the petitioner(s) is disposed of by the Apex Court. Leaving that course unutilised, the petitioners cannot maintain these writ petitions. As rightly held by this Court in the second appeal, the petitioners being tenants cannot question the title of the fifth respondent. The reason being that the fifth respondent was able to succeed before all the Courts viz., trial Court, first appellate Court and the second appellate Court and when the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were confirmed by both the first appellate Court and the second appellate Court, special leave petition(s) has been filed by the respective petitioner(s) and the same is pending. When the petitioners are having effective, alternative and efficacious remedy before the Apex Court in the pending special leave petition(s), it is not proper for the writ Court to entertain the prayer under its extraordinary jurisdiction. Equally it is also a well settled legal principle that when an alternative remedy is available under any Act or Rules made thereunder to an affected party, in such cases, the filing of writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be said to be an abuse of the process of law. This apart, admittedly, when a suit was also filed by the Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling and Urban Land Tax in O.S.No.449 of 2014 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamalle seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the fifth respondent from collecting the rent from the tenants who were in occupation of the land in Survey No.151/1B, Ramapuram Village, the said suit was also dismissed for default. That proceedings became final and concluded. Therefore, in my considered view, the petitioners, being admittedly tenants under the fifth respondent, have no legal right to question the title of the fifth respondent and more so, when they have no locus to come to this Court to maintain the writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos.7384, 7388, 7390 of 2019 are also dismissed. No costs.
