Madras High Court
Unknown vs D.Babulal on 19 January, 2023
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023 and
C.M.P.No.828 of 2023
B.K.Vasantha Plastics Industries
Rep by its Prop. S.Badal Kumar [died]
1. B.K.Rajkumar
[impleaded vide order dated
28.10.2010 in M.P.No.285 of 2010] .. Petitioner
vs
1. D.Babulal
2. D.Ramesh Kumar
3. D.Mahendra Kumar
4. D.Parveen Kumar .. Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India seeking to allow the above civil revision petition, and
set aside the fair and decretal order dated 19.12.2022 passed in E.P.No.644
of 2022 in R.C.O.P No.2137 of 2007 by the learned XIV Judge Court of
Small Causes, Chennai.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023
For Petitioner : Mr.Ashok Menon
For Respondents : Mr.T.T.Ravichandran
for Mr.M.Balasubramanian
ORDER
The civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair and
decretal order dated 19.12.2022 passed in E.P.No.664 of 2022 in
R.C.O.P.No.2137 of 2007.
2. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor / tenant. The
respondent landlord / decree holder instituted proceedings for eviction
under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1960 (for brevity, “the Act”). The eviction petition was filed
on the ground of demolition and reconstruction, since the subject building
was very old. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner / tenant is in
occupation in the subject premises for the past 52 years. The landlord took a
decision to demolish and reconstruct the building and accordingly
approached the Rent Controller for eviction of the tenant. It is not in dispute
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023
that the R.C.O.P filed by the landlord in R.C.O.P.No.2137 of 2007 was
allowed and the R.C.A filed by the revision petitioner / tenant was
dismissed.
3. The landlord / decree holder filed E.P.No.664 of 2022 for execution
of the decree. The said execution petition was allowed on 19.12.2022 and
delivery was ordered and delivery was directed on 20.01.2023. At the stage
of the delivery, the revision petitioners have chosen to file the present civil
revision petition mainly on the ground that the respondent / landlord failed
to furnish a copy of the approved plan from the local authority and
therefore, the revision petitioner is not to be evicted from the subject
premises.
4. In this regard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision
petitioner mainly contended that the respondents have filed an order for
demolition issued by the Competent Authorities, but, they have failed to
mark any documents regarding the plan approval and therefore, they are not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023
entitled to seek possession of the subject premises based on the decree
passed by the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller Appellate Authority.
5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied
on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Harrington
House School Vs. S.M.Ispahani reported in [2002 (2) CTC 549], wherein,
the Apex Court made an observation that, “the decree as passed in High
Court is sustained, but, it is directed that the landlord shall submit the plans
of reconstruction for the approval of the local authority. Only on the plans
being sanctioned by the local authority the decree for eviction shall be
available for execution. Such sanctioned or approved plans shall be
produced before the Executing Court whereupon the Executing Court shall
allow a reasonable time to the tenant for vacating the property and
delivering possession to the landlord-decreeholders. Till then the tenant
shall remain liable to pay charges for use and occupation of the suit
premises at the same rate at which they are being paid. Along with the plans
the landlords shall also file an undertaking before the Executing Court as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023
required by clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of the Section 14 of the Act.”
6. Relying upon the above judgment, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner reiterated that the Execution Court has failed to consider the ratio
laid down by the Apex Court and thus, the order impugned in the present
revision petition is to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents raised an objection by
stating that the revision petitioner is continuing in the subject premises for
the past 52 years and the lease period already expired long back. The
respondent / landlord have decided to demolish the building, since it is in a
dilapidated condition. Accordingly, the landlord furnished the copy of the
order for demolition of the building alone, since, he has not filed any
documents regarding reconstruction and no plan approval issued by any
Competent Authority. More so, even in the execution proceedings, if such
planning approval was filed, that does not entitle the revision peitioner /
tenant for any relief in the execution proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended
that the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable with regard
to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The facts involved in the
judgment of the Supreme Court, cited supra, are distinguished and more so,
in the said case, there is an observation by the Supreme Court that, “though
the plan of the proposed reconstruction is ready with the landlords but the
same has not been submitted to the Municipal Authority till now. For this
omission the explanation given by the landlords through S.A.Ispahani,
P.W.1 is that a substantial amount is charged by the local authority by way
of fee for sanctioning the plans for reconstruction and if the reconstruction
is not carried out within a limited time the sanction has to be kept renewed
periodically for which the local authority again charges a substantial amount
by way of renewal fee.”
9. Relying upon the above paragraphs of the very same judgment
Harrington House School case (surpa), the learned counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023
respondents stated that, in the present case also, the R.C.O.P was instituted
in the year 2007 and the execution petition was filed in the year 2022.
Therefore, even in case the plan approval was obtained, the time limit would
have expired during the relevant point of time and in the present case, the
landlord submitted an order of demolition issued by the Competent
Authority for demolishing the building and a separate application was filed
by the landlord for the purpose of getting plan approval individually.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that, admittedly, the
respondent / landlord filed an order of demolition issued by the Competent
Authority. As rightly contended by the respondents that the proceedings are
pending for the past 15 years and the lease expired long back. Even in case
the building plan approval was obtained by the landlord in the year 2007, at
the time of filing of the R.C.O.P, the time limit would have expired long
back. However, in the present case, the landlord filed an order of demolition
issued by the competent authority and would be sufficient for the purpose of
evicting the tenants. If demolition is carried out, then, the landlord shall file
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023
an application for obtaining building plan approval and therefore, the said
ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is of no value for the purpose of
setting aside of the order passed in the execution proceedings.
11. The R.C.O.P and the Rent Controller appeal were decided on
merits. More so, the civil revision petition filed before the High Court is
also dismissed and therefore, the order of eviction became final after a lapse
of 15 years. The revision petitioner / tenant has been in the occupation of
the premises for the past about 52 years. The lease period already expired
long back. Thus, the tenant has no right to continue in the premises by
prolonging or protracting the issues any further. Non-filing of the plan
approval by the landlord would not be a ground for seeking continuous
occupation in the subject premises as tenants and the landlord admittedly
filed an order of demolition which would be sufficient for the purpose of
evicting the tenant and therefore, this Court do not find any reason to
interfere with the order passed in the execution proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023
12. The Execution Court passed an order on 19.12.2022 and delivery
was ordered on 20.01.2023. This being the facts and circumstances, the
revision petitioner cannot take any further advantage for the purpose of
dragging on the proceedings, since they are in occupation of the subject
premises for the past 52 years and the landlord succeeded before all the
Courts and eviction was ordered long back and therefore, there is no
impediment for evicting the revision petitioner from the subject premises
without any further loss of time.
13. With these observations, this civil revision petition is dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There will be no
order as to costs.
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order. 19.01.2023
Internet : Yes/No.
Index: Yes/No.
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
drm
To
1. The XIV Judge Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
drm
C.R.P.No.108 of 2023 and
C.M.P.No.828 of 2023
19.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
