Madras High Court

R.Thenrajan vs Dr.D.Thyagarajan on 26 November, 2025

                                                                          CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                DATED: 26-11-2025
                                                    CORAM
                                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI


                                           CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025
                                        and CMP Nos.23451 and 23448 of 2025

                  R.Thenrajan                                                Petitioner in both the revisions

                                                               Vs

                  1. Dr.D.Thyagarajan

                  2. ANS Pandiyan Super Market
                     rep by its Partners
                  (1) Ganesan
                  (2)N.Pattu Kamaraj
                  (3) N.Senthurpandiyan
                  (4) Anishkumar

                  (R.2 sumo motu impleaded vide court order


                  1/14




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm )
                                                                               CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025


                  dated 28.10.2025 made in CRPNos.4640 &
                  4641 of 2021)
                                                                              Respondents in both the revisions




                  Revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for records

                  and struck off the proceedings in execution petitions in EP Nos.07 and 02 of

                  2025 in C.O.S.No.496 of 2023 on the file of Principal District Judge,

                  Thiruvallur.


                                  For Petitioner         :              Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan
                                                                        Senior Counsel
                                                                        For Mr.M.Rajkumar


                  2/14




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                    ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm )
                                                                           CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025




                                  For Respondents    :              Mr.M.V.Seshachari



                                                    COMMON ORDER

Heard Mr.K.K.Senthilvelan, learned Senior Counsel for the

revision petitioner/tenant and Mr.M.V.Seshachari, learned counsel for the

respondent.

The proceedings in EP No.7 of 2025 to arrest the judgment

debtor/tenant is sought to be struck off in the present revision.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm ) CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025

2. I am informed that the execution petition is at the stage of only

recording means evidence and I do not see any case made out for striking off

the said execution petition, since a remedy is available to the decree holder to

contend that despite possessing sufficient means, the judgment debtor is

evading payment due and payable to the decree holder. Hence I see no merit

in the civil revision petition. Therefore, CRP No.4630 of 2025 is

dismissed. It is open to the revision petitioner to defend the execution

petition on merits. The executing court shall take into account the payment

made pending the proceedings and also shall give an opportunity to the

petitioner to settle the arrears amount, considering the fact that the tenant has

vacated and handed over vacant possession before this Court today, which is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm ) CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025

being recorded in CRP NO.4641 of 2025.

3. CRP No.4641 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner/tenant

challenging the order of delivery passed by the executing court in EP No.2 of

2025.

4. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner/tenant

has already vacated and is ready to hand over the keys, however, the revision

has been periodically adjourned on the ground that there is no proper access

for the landlord to reach the tenanted premises. It is a case where the relative

of the petitioner/tenant is independently a tenant in respect of the ground

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm ) CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025

floor portion of the same building. The 1st and 2nd floors are in occupation

of the revision petitioner.

5. Previously there was good understanding between the petitioner

and the ground floor tenant and therefore, the petitioner was using the

passage inside the ground floor portion to access the lift and thereby reach the

first and second floors. In view of this, the ground floor tenant has extended

his shoop/area of operation into the access area leading to the upper floors.

However, the decree holder cannot be required to deal with the ground floor

tenant against whom also eviction proceedings are pending before the Civil

Court, In order to give a quietus, I have suo motu impleaded the tenant

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm ) CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025

occupying the ground floor portion.

6. Despite service of notice, the ground floor tenant, also having

engaged a counsel, has thereafter not shown any interest to appear before this

Court. The learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the newly

impleaded respondent viz., the ground floor occupant has reported no

instructions today.

7. In the light of the above, in order to give a quietus to the matter,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm ) CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025

when admittedly, it is clear that what has been let out to the revision

petitioner was the first and second floors with definite access to reach the first

and second floors through the ground floor portion directly leading to the lift,

which gives access to the upper floors and the fact that the said portion was

not forming part of the lease in favour of the ground floor occuppant.

8. In the light of the above CRP No.4640 is dismissed and CRP

No.4641 of 2025 is disposed of in the following manner:-

(i) The petitioner/tenant has handedover the keys to the

respondent/landlord today, the receipt of which, the counsel

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm ) CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025

for the landlord admits and acknowledges.

(ii) Insofar as ensuring the access that was originally made

available to the revision petitioner, to reach the tenanted

premises in the first and second floors, it is open to the

respondent/landlord to take the assistance of the Court Bailiff

in the pending execution petition to ensure that the access is

restored as it was originally given to the revision

petitioner/tenant.

(iii) It is made clear that the executing court shall not

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm ) CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025

entertain any objection or resistence from the ground floor

tenant and necessary police aid shall also be provided to the

bailiff in the event of there being any resistence to the

execution of the decree, insofar as restoration of the access to

the first and second floors portion.

(iv) Insofar as the tenanted ground floor portion, which is the

subject matter of an independent suit, it is open to the ground

floor/tenant to agitate all his contentions in the pending case

and the order passed in this revision will not prejudice the

interests of the tenant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm ) CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025

(v) So far as arrears of rent, the parties are at liberty to

ventilate their respective claims and objections in the pending

execution petition.

(vi) In view of the details furnished by the petitioner/tenant,

one Anishkumar has also been impleaded in this revision. By

virtue of the suo-motu impleadment of Anishkumar, the Son-

in-law of the petitioner has also been impleaded in this

present revision. It was only to give a quietus to the disputes

between the revision petitioner and the respondent/landlord

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:59:04 pm ) CRP Nos.4640 and 4641 of 2025

insofar as the first and second floors are concerned and for