Madras High Court
Sivakumar vs Anbazhagan on 26 September, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order reserved on : 17.09.2025 Order pronounced on : 26.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
CRP.No.1899 of 2023
1.Sivakumar
2.Punithavathi ..Petitioners
Vs.
1.Anbazhagan
2.Malarvizhi
3.Chandra
4.Balaji
Poongavanam Ammal (Died)
Veerasami (Died) ..Respondents
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India, to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 19.04.2023 passed in
E.P.No.94 of 2019 in RCOP.No.9 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District
Munsif at Chidambaram.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Gururaj
For Respondents : Mr.B.Manoharan for RR1 and 2
ORDER
The revision petitioners are the judgment debtors in E.P.No.94 of 2019.
The revision petitioners suffered an order of eviction in RCOP.No.9 of 2011
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:37:27 am )
and E.P.No.94 of 2019 was filed and the executing Court has passed an order
on 19.04.2023 for recovering possession of the property from the revision
petitioners. The said order is under challenge in the present revision petition.
2.I have heard Mr.R.Gururaj, learned counsel for the revision petitioners
and Mr.B.Manoharan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the petitioners
are respondents 3 and 4 in the execution petition as well as in the rent control
proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, there
is no jural relationship as landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the
respondents and fraud has been played by the purchasers of the property from
the original owner, Liakath Ali Khan and others. He would further contend that
the brother of the 1st revision petitioner, Natarajan and the wife of the 2nd
revision petitioner had entered into an unregistered usufructuary mortgage with
Abdul Rahim and others and the said Natarajan invested Rs.3 lakhs for putting
up a construction as well and he has been doing business in the said premises.
The father of the 1st revision petitioner, Rajagopal died on 14.01.2010 and
within two days, the said Natarajan died on 16.01.2010 and thereafter, the
mother Poongavanam Ammal was carrying on business in the said promises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:37:27 am )
4.It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the revision
petitioners that Poongavanam Ammal had entered into an agreement of sale on
07.02.2010 to purchase the property. She also claims that there is an agreement
of sale for purchasing the property. However, the subject property has been sold
to the respondents on 24.08.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-.
5.Pointing out to the sale deed, copy of which has been obtained by the
petitioners, under the Right to Information Act and referring to the sale deed
that was relied upon by the respondents before the Rent Controller, the learned
counsel would contend that the photocopy of a pending document which has
not even assigned a registered number has been filed by the respondents along
with the RCOP and it is not even disclosed as to how they became lawfully
entitled to a photocopy of an official record. He would further state that the
document was referred under Section 47(A) of the Stamp Act for deficit stamp
duty and only much later, the deficit was made up and the document was
released. The document which was presented before the Rent Controller did not
contain any of the registering authorities endorsements with regard to deficit
stamp duty or even the document number assigned for the said Sale Deed. He
would therefore state that fraud has been played and the rights of the
usufructuary mortgage deed has been snatched away by the respondents.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:37:27 am )
6.The learned counsel for the petitioners would also state that as against
the order of eviction, the petitioners have preferred RCA.Nos.3 and 4 of 2019
which are pending before the Sub-Court, Chidambaram, and despite the
petitioners' counsel having already argued the appeals, the respondents have not
come forward to present their arguments. He would therefore pray for the order
passed by the executing Court being set aside with a direction to the Appellate
Authority to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that
pursuant to the order passed by the Rent Controller, the respondents have filed
E.P.No.94 of 2019 and as there was no interim stay granted by the Appellate
Authority, the respondents have moved for execution and pressed for orders to
be passed, in fact, the respondents were constrained to approach this Court in
CRP.No.4064 of 2022 and by order dated 10.01.2023, this Court has directed
the execution petition to be expeditiously disposed of as well. This order came
to be passed only in the presence of the revision petitioners.
8.It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the
respondents that subsequently in view of there being no interim stay in this
revision also the respondents have proceeded to take delivery of the tenanted
premises. He would therefore nothing survives for consideration in the revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:37:27 am )
9.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel on either side.
10.Today, even though the respondents may have taken possession of the
tenanted premises, it was only pending challenge to the order of eviction passed
by the Rent Controller. If at all the revision petitioners ultimately succeed in the
Rent Control Appeals, then they would be entitled to restitution. I do not see
any necessity to decide this revision, especially when the statutory appeals
under Section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,
1960, are pending before the Appellate Authority. All the contentions that have
been argued in the present revision with regard to the alleged fraud played by
the respondents, etc, can always be canvassed before the Appellate Authority. It
is needless to state that in the event of the petitioners succeeding in overturning
the findings of the Rent Controller, then they would automatically become
entitled to restitution of the property. Therefore, considering the above and also
in view of the fact that possession has already been taken through Court, I do
not see any merit in the present revision petition.
11.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with liberty to the
revision petitioners to agitate all their contentions, including the grounds that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:37:27 am )
have been taken in the present revision petition before the Appellate Authority,
namely the Sub-Court, Chidambaram. The Sub-Court, Chidambaram, shall hear
the appeals, after giving full and fair opportunity to both the parties and decide
the appeals on merits and accordance with law, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to
costs.
26.09.2025
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes/No
ata
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:37:27 am )
To
1.The Principal Munsif at Chidambaram.
2.The Sub-Court, Chidambaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:37:27 am )
P.B.BALAJI.J,
ata
Pre-delivery order made in
26.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/09/2025 11:37:27 am )
