Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The petitioner before me is an obstructor in the proceedings and the first respondent is the landlord. The landlord was successful in obtaining a decree against his tenant, one Arjun, in R.C.O.P.No.1987 of 2011. In order to take delivery of possession, he filed E.P.No.261 of 2014. The Court also ordered delivery on 07.08.2014. When he accompanied the bailiff to execute the warrant, the Civil Revision Petitioner obstructed the bailiff. Since the obstructor was not a tenant, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis landlord filed E.A.No.100 of 2014. It is the case of the obstructor that he was inducted as a tenant by the landlord's grandmother (who is also the grandmother of the obstructor), Late Subburathnamma, who passed away on 23.01.2010. One of the legal heirs of Subburathnamma had filed a suit for partition in C.S.No.43 of 2012, wherein the landlord and the obstructor are also impleaded as parties However, he admitted that he approached the landlord to tender the rents due but the same was refused by the landlord. Therefore, the plea of the obstructor was that the appropriate remedy for the decree holder was only to approach the civil Court and file a fresh suit for recovery of possession and not to execute the decree already obtained as against the second respondent. On the side of the landlord, he produced one settlement deed executed by Subburathnamma in his favour. On the side of the obstructor, he entered the witness box and marked Exs.R1 to R11.

7. This is an obstruction proceeding under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In order to succeed in such an obstruction proceeding, the person who is sought to be removed as an obstructor, must prove that he is having an independent right or title or interest in the property, and that he is not bound by the decree. In the case on hand, the obstructor has filed a counter wherein he has stated as follows:

8. This shows that the possession of the obstructor is not independent, but through the tenant. The person who claims his right through the tenant as rightly been held by the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court is bound by the decree and is liable to be evicted from the premises.

9. Apart from the said fact, the obstructor before the trial court has filed 11 documents. Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 relate to a period when the original owner of the property late Thirumathy. Subburathnamma was alive. These documents predate the RCOP proceeding, and hence, they are irrelevant. The claim of the decree holder is that Subburathnamma had executed a settlement deed in his favour and therefore, he became the owner of the property. It is on the strength of the settlement deed https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis executed in his favour, he had presented the rent control eviction proceedings and became successful. Therefore, the documents prior to 2010 are of no use to sustain the claim of the obstructor.

10. Insofar as Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 are concerned, they are also the documents standing in the name of Subburathnamma and are prior to the execution of the settlement deed in the year 2010. The crucial document, Ex.R7, is a reply notice issued by the decree holder stating that he is not accepting rents from the obstructor for the demised premises.

11. The other documents filed by the obstructor are documents under Ex.R6, Ex.R9 to Ex.R11. These documents have all come into existence after the RCOP was filed in the year 2011 and therefore, they have to be ignored. In other words, there is absolutely no evidence let in by the obstructor to prove that he has been in independent possession of the property.