Aradhana Polymers v. J.Karthick

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.09.2024

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN M/s. Aradhana Polymers Rep by its Managing Director Pradeesh 2nd Cross Street, Ragavan Colony Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 600083.

... Petitioner / Defendant Vs.

J.Karthick S/o. S.Jayaprakasam ... Respondent / Plaintiff PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to direct the learned District Munsif Judge, Poonamalle to expedite the hearing of O.S. No. 361 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif Judge, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District. For Petitioner :

Mr. Thyagarajan assisted by Ms.G.Sangeetha

O R D E R

This civil revision petition has been filed for direction to the learned District Munsif at Poonamallee to expedite the hearing of O.S. No. 361 of 2022.

1/6

2. When the matter came up for admission, I called for a report from the learned Principal District Munsif at Poonamallee on 06.08.2024. The learned Principal District Munsif at Poonamallee has sent a report stating that P.W.1 is yet to mark his side of documents and therefore not less than four months would be required for disposal of the case. At this stage, Mr. Thyagarajan will invite my attention to a memo that has been filed by the defendant in the said suit. The memo reads as follows:- 2/6

3. He would add that this memo was rejected by the learned District Munsif on the ground that the suit is not infructuous, since the petitioner is yet to take possession of the property. The e-Court proceedings read as follows:- 3/6

4. I went through the plaint and found that the suit itself is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from evicting the plaintiff except otherwise in due process of law. Mr. Thyagarajan would submit that the defendant never intended to take possession forcibly. On the contrary, he has presented a petition for eviction in R.L.T.O.P. No. 16 of 2023 before the learned Principal District Munsif cum Rent Court at Poonamallee. He adds that the said R.L.T.O.P. was allowed on 12.12.2023. He states that the tenant has not preferred any appeal against the said order.

5. When the relief in the suit itself is not to evict the tenant except otherwise in accordance with law and when the landlord has initiated proceedings for eviction, then it means that the landlord has submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts and has not taken law into his own hands for the purpose of eviction. When such plea of the position, there is nothing left for adjudication in the suit.

6. Mr. Thyagarajan submits that his client will take possession of the property only after obtaining appropriate orders from the Execution Court. The said statement is placed on record.

7. In the light of the clear and specific statements of Mr. Thyagarajan 4/6

that R.L.T.O.P. proceedings have been initiated by the landlord and an eviction order has been passed on 12.12.2023, I fail to understand what else remains for adjudication in O.S. No. 361 of 2022. The suit on the face of it infructuous. Consequently, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 2093, the suit in O.S. No. 361 of 2022 has become infructuous. The learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the suit recording this order.

8. The statement of Mr. Thyagarajan that possession will be taken only through process of the Court is reiterated. This will protect the interest of the tenant.

9. With the above orders, the civil revision petition stands disposed of. No costs.

05.09.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking order : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No pal To The District Munsif Judge, Poonamalle.

5/6

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

, pal 05.09.2024 6/6