Madras High Court
Sarfaraz Ahmed vs Zeenat Banu on 9 August, 2024
C.R.P.(PD).No.3191 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.3191 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.17062 of 2024
1. Sarfaraz Ahmed
2. Khalid Seraj .. Petitioners
Versus
Zeenat Banu .. Respondent
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India to call for the record and strike of the E.P.No.55 of 2024 in
R.L.T.O.P.No.130 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judge, XIII Small
Causes Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Al Arfeen Ahamed
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises at the instance of the judgment
debtors. There is no dispute about the relationship between the civil
revision petitioners/tenants and the respondent/landlord.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The respondent, being the landlord, initiated proceedings under
Sections 21(2)(a), 21(2)(b), 21(2)(e) and 21(2)(g) of the Tamil Nadu
Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act,
2017. After a notice to the civil revision petitioners/tenants, the Trial Court
passed an order of eviction only under Section 21(2)(a). It also directed the
civil revision petitioners/tenants to hand over possession within two months
from the date of the order. In order to execute the decree, the
respondent/landlord preferred E.P.No.55 of 2024. Challenging the delivery
order passed in the Execution Petition, the present Civil Revision Petition
arises before this Court.
3. Heard Mr.A.Al Arfeen Ahamed, learned Counsel for the
petitioners/tenants and Ms.R.Supraja, learned Counsel for Mr.Prahlad Bhat,
learned Counsel for the respondent/landlord.
4. Mr.A.Al Arfeen Ahamed would submit that even before the
R.L.T.O.P came to be filed, the civil revision petitioners/tenants had vacated
the premises and handed over the possession of the property to the
respondent/landlord. He would therefore state that the Execution Petition is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not maintainable since the possession is not with the petitioners/tenants.
Apart from that, he would plead that the respondent/landlord had issued a
notice through his lawyer on 22.05.2023 claiming not only the handing over
of keys for the petition mentioned property, but, also for the payment of
arrears of rent to a tune of Rs.12,93,675/- together with interest at the rate of
12% per annum. He would state that since possession has been handed
over, the question of payment of Rs.12,93,675/- with or without interest
does not arise. Hence, he pleads for the revision to be allowed and the
Execution Petition to be dismissed.
5. Per contra, Ms.Supraja would plead that, the decree holder is
putting the decree into execution to take delivery of the property and
therefore, no exception can be taken to the course of action resorted to by
her.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments on either side.
7. The plea raised by Mr.A.Al Arfeen Ahamed that possession has
been handed over to the respondent/landlord as early as in December, 2020
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
was pleaded in R.L.T.O.P.No.130 of 2020. In fact, a memo had been filed
by the civil revision petitioners/tenants on 27.09.2022 pleading that the
possession had been handed over. Despite of the same, in paragraph No.6
of the order in R.L.T.O.P.No.130 of 2020, dated 02.02.2023, the Court, on
its original side, had specifically found that the tenant had not given any
proof for the handing over of possession. This finding had attained finality,
because no appeal was preferred as against the said order of eviction.
8. Here, I have to recollect the principle that res judicata not only
applies between two separate proceedings, but, also between two stages of
the same proceeding. The plea raised by Mr.A.Al Arfeen Ahamed has been
specifically raised before the Court during the trial. It had been rejected.
Therefore, the civil revision petitioners/judgment debtors cannot raise the
very same plea before the executing Court and seek the executing Court to
decide the said issue. The said plea is obviously barred by the principles of
res judicata and therefore, it stands rejected.
9. Insofar as the plea of Mr.A.Al Arfeen Ahamed that the Counsel for
the decree holder had made a demand for Rs.12,93,675/- together with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
interest is concerned, it is not the subject matter of the execution. In case a
suit for recovery of the said amount is filed, it is always open to the civil
revision petitioners to take a defence if it is open to them and get the suit
dismissed on its own merits. Suffice it to say, for the purpose of disposal of
this revision, the said plea is not germane at all.
10. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the execution proceedings. This Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
09.08.2024
Index : yes/no
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes/no
grs
To
The XIII Small Causes Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
grs
C.R.P.(PD).3191 of 2024
09.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
