Madras High Court
D.S.Nagarajan vs Kishore on 22 June, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.06.2021
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
C.R.P.NPD.No.2722 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.17959 of 2019
D.S.Nagarajan
... Petitioner/Petitioner/Judgment Debtor/Respondent
Vs
Kishore
... Respondent/Respondent/Decree Holder/Petitioner
Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC., to set
aside the Judgment and Decree passed in E.A.SR.No.44564 of 2019 in
E.P.No.17 of 2018 in RCOP.No.1243 of 2017 dated 09.07.2019 on the
file of the X Small Causes Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner .. Dr.P.Vasudevan
For Respondent .. Mr.M.Arvind Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises from an order dated 09.07.2019
in E.A.S.R.No.44563 of 2019 and E.A.S.R.No.44564 of 2019 in
E.P.No.17 of 2018 in R.C.O.P.No.1243 of 2017 pending on the file of
the X Small Causes Court, Chennai.
2.The said unnumbered Execution Applications had been filed by
the revision petitioner herein. The revision petitioner is the husband of
the respondent in the Rent Control Proceedings. The claim of the
revision petitioner is that though the Rent Control Proceedings had been
filed against his wife, he had not been individually impleaded as a tenant
and therefore, the entire proceedings stands vitiated.
3.The learned Rent Controller in the course of the order dismissing
the application and refusing to take them on file had stated that the
records revealed that in an earlier M.P.Nos.62 and 63 of 2018, the wife
had never claimed that she was not a tenant and that only the husband
was the tenant. I hold this reason to be correct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4.Both the husband and wife are living in the very same premises.
Claiming that only one of them is a tenant and the order of eviction will
not bind the other cannot be accepted.
5.The scope of a Rent Control Petition is to seek possession of a
property from the possession of a tenant under various ground as set out
in the Act and any order of eviction will bind all those persons occupying
the said premises and who are aware of the proceedings. Specifically,
each of the spouses are directly bound by an order of eviction.
6.My attention is drawn to an order of a learned Single Judge of
this Court dated 12.09.2018 in CRP (MD) Nos.1571 of 2018 and 1861 of
2018, J.Sarulatha Vs. P.R.Ramakrishnan (died) and three others,
wherein, the it is claimed by Dr.P.Vasudevan, learned counsel for the
petitioner the learned Single Judge had observed as follows:
“A fusion of the personality of the wife with
that of the husband is a relic pre-modern law. The
ideal of Arthanareeswara is not to be involved in this
case.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7.The said observations are the personal observations of the
learned Single Judge and I have no hesitation in rejecting the said
observations. They are per incuriam so far as the facts of this case are
concerned.
8.The Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against a tenant
who denied the relationship of landlord / tenant and later when the
decree was put to execution, the husband has entered the picture claiming
that he is the tenant. The contention is rejected. Costs of Rs.25,000/- are
imposed and the onus is placed on the learned Rent Controller to ensure
that the costs of Rs.25,000/- are paid.
9.With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed, with costs. The learned Rent Controller is directed to proceed
further with the Execution Petition and at any rate terminate the same by
a judicial order on or before 31.07.2021.
22.06.2021
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
smv
To
The X Small Causes Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
C.R.P.NPD.No.2722 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.17959 of 2019
22.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
