High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:06.11.2007CORM:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANICivil Revision Petition (NPD) No.337 of 2006and CMP.Nos.2596 of 2006, 2660 & 2261/20071. Sheik Allaudin2. Asia Natchialle3. Mohammed Mustafa.. Petitioners / Proposed Respondent Vs.Annibal Thamilarasi Jesintha.. Respondent/ PetitionerCivil Revision Petition filed under section 25 of thePondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969, againstthe order dated 6.9.2005 passed in E.A.No.145 of 2003 inR.C.E.P.No.16 of 2003 in HRCOP No.17 of 1999 on the file of thePrincipal District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Pondicherry.For petitioner : Mr. T.P.ManoharanFor respondent : M/s.R.Subramanian & M.Sudhakar ORDERThe proposed parties who are third parties to the rent controland execution proceedings are the revision petitioners in thisrevision.2. This revision petition is directed against the order of thelearned Rent Controller, Pondicherry dated 6.9.2005 passed inE.A.No.145 of 2003 in RCEP.No.16 of 2003 in HRCOP No.17 of 1999.The respondent herein has filed the rent control petition in HRCOP.No.17 of 1999 against one Marie Louis Saint John for eviction onthe ground of willful default in payment of rent and eviction orderwas passed on 3.10.2001 by the learned Rent Controller/PrincipalDistrict Munsif, Pondicherry which was confirmed by the learnedChief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional District Judge, Pondicherryin R.C.A.No.46 of 2001 by judgment dated 3.1.2003. It is statedthat the order of eviction has become final. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent/landlady has filed E.P.No.16 of 2003 against the originaltenant in March, 2003. It is stated that subsequently, the originaltenant who was unmarried and who suffered the decree of evictiondied on 14.7.2003. The respondent/landlady filed E.A.No.145 of 2003to implead the revision petitioners as respondents 2 to 4 in theexecution petition. The said petition was filed by therespondent/landlady on the basis that even though the originaltenant who was unmarried and issueless died on 14.7.2003, the tenantwas being accompanied by the proposed parties who are the revisionpetitioners during the period of litigation. It is also the caseof the landlady that the third proposed party, Mohammed Musthafahad participated in the rent control proceedings as power agent ofthe original tenant, Marie Louis Saint John and the proposed partiesare to be impleaded on the basis that they are in physicalpossession of the premises without any right to occupy, for thepurpose of completing the execution proceedings. 3. The learned Rent Controller has allowed the said petitionagainst which the third parties have filed the present revision.The reasons adduced by the revision petitioners for assailing theorder of the learned Rent Controller are that the revisionpetitioners are in occupation and enjoyment of the house under oneMarie Louis Saint Simon who has the right of interest over thepremises and they had no connection with Marie Louis Saint Johnagainst whom the eviction order has been passed. It is the furtherground of the revision petitioners that section 50 of the Code ofCivil Procedure would apply only in respect of the legalrepresentatives of judgment debtors and therefore, taking advantageof the order of eviction against the tenant, the revisionpetitioners cannot be disturbed. The further ground raised in therevision is that the remedy open to the respondent is to file a suitagainst Marie Louis Saint Simon for partition of the half share inthe house. Further, it is the case of the revision petitioners thatthe respondent has not deliberately impleaded the two male issues ofMarie Louis Saint Simon by name Thomas Jacques Michel Marie Louisand Jerome Philippe Mathieu Marie Louis, who are the absolute ownersof the property in question and therefore, the finding of the RentController and the consequential eviction order passed would not inany way affect the right, title or possession of the said MarieLouis Saint Simon and his male descendants under whom the revisionpetitioners claim to be the tenants. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as wellas the respondent. 5. It is seen that in the execution application, therespondent/landlady was examined as P.W.1 and the third petitionerherein was examined as D.W.1 and various documents were marked onthe side of the respondent as Exs.P-1 to P-18 and on the side ofthe revision petitioners as Exs.R-1 to R-8. The learned RentController has found on fact that the order of eviction, which has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ become final, was passed against the original tenant, by name, MarieLouis Saint John and he was married to the second revisionpetitioner as per Ex.P-1, marriage certificate. The Rent Controllerhas also found that as evident from Exs.P-2 to P-6 the thirdrevision petitioner was the power of attorney agent of the originaltenant. The Rent Controller has found that the third revisionpetitioner who was examined as R.W.1 has clearly admitted that thereis no proof to show that Marie Louis Saint Simon is living inFrance and he, claiming to be his power agent, has not filed anysuit for declaration that the said Marie Louis Saint Simon isentitled to the property and not Marie Louis Saint John, who was theoriginal tenant. In fact, after discussing the entire evidence, thelearned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion, correctly in myopinion, that he need not go into the right of Marie Louis SaintSimon over the premises in question since the proceedings areonly at the stage of impleading parties. The Rent Controller hasfound, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court inBalasubramanya Gupta vs. Saraswathi Ammal and others (2005(2) LW450), that the term tenant in respect of non-residential buildingincludes a person living with the tenant as a member of thetenant's family upto the death of the tenant and therefore held thatit is not necessary for a 'tenant' to claim to be a legal heir ofthe deceased tenant and it is enough that he had been in continuousassociation of the deceased tenant and in such case, he can betermed as legal representative of the deceased tenant, which cannotbe equated with the term, legal heir. It is not in dispute that thethird revision petitioner is having a Sangam in one portion of theE.P. schedule mentioned property for the welfare of the FrenchCitizens and therefore, it is a non-residential building and as alegal representatives of the deceased tenant, the impleadment of therevision petitioners is not either illegal or irregular. In view ofthe same, I do not see any irregularity or illegality in thefindings arrived at by the learned Rent Controller that the revisionpetitioners are the necessary parties to the execution proceedings.Accordingly, the C.R.P. fails and the same is dismissed. Nocosts. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Kh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ToThe Rent Controller/Prl.District MunsifPondicherry.2 ccs to Mr.R. Subramanian, Advocate, SR. 66647 C.R.P.(NPD)No.337 of 2006CU (CO)kk 13/11