1

IN THE III ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL COURT, CHENNAI

Present: Tmt.R.K.P.Tamilarasi, M.L.,
III Additional Judge,

Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 2024

I.A.No.1 of 2024
in
RLTA.No.79 of 2024

CNR.No.TNCH01-015013-2024

Mr.Mohamed Rafi
Son of Mr.S.S.Sahad,
No.F2, Anderson Gardens,
Anderson Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai - 600 034. .. Petitioner/Appellant

Vs.

1. Mr.V.Sridhar
Son of Emberumanar Chetty,
Residing at Old No.51, New No.37,
McNiccholas Road, Chetpet,
Chennai - 600 031.

2. M/s.The Ahamed International,

Rep. by Mr.Ahamed Arif,
Office at No.55/22,
Rajasekaran Street, Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004. .. Respondents/respondents

This petition came up on 23.10.2024 before me in the presence of

M/s.L.Gavaskar, B.Suresh Kumar, S.Jagan and A.Preethi Akshaya, counsel for

petitioner/appellant and of M/s.PVS Griridhar Associates, Y.Kavitha, D.Prasanna,

K.Shankar and S.Shivashankari, counsel for 1st respondent, there is no appearance on

the side of the 2nd respondent, upon perusing the petition, counter and other
 2

connected records, on hearing arguments of both side and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

The petition is filed under Order 38(4) of the Tamil Nadu Regulations of Rights

and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act to stay for all further proceedings

in pursuant to the fair and decreetal order dated 15.02.2024 passed in RLTOP.No.13

of 2020 by the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai untill disposal of the appeal.

2. The averments made in the petition in short as follows:

The 1st respondent is not a landlord for the petitioner/appellant and the

petitioner/appellant is not a tenant under the 1st respondent in respect of the petition

premises. There is no jural relationship between the 1st respondent and the petitioner

as landlord and tenant in respect of the petition premises. The 1st respondent is a

Licensor and the 2nd respondent is a licensee in respect of the petition premises.

Hence, the eviction petition filed in RLTOP.No.13 of 2020 by the 1st respondent is

not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The 1st respondent has not

issued any notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to call upon to enter into

rental agreement with him under the new Act. The 1st respondent has handed over

the possession of the petition premises to the petitioner prior to commencement of the

new Act and as such prior to commencement of the new Act, the 2nd respondent was

not in possession of the petition premises. Therefore, the RLTOP.No.13 of 2020 is not

at all maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The 1st respondent has

filed a written statement in O.S.No.6113 of 2018 on the file of II Assistant City Civil
 3

Court, Chennai that the possession of the petition premises can only termed as

trespasser and not a legal possession. Hence, as per the own pleadings of the 1st

respondent that the petitioner being an encroacher/trespasser of the petition premises

and as such if the 1st respondent has any grievance to evict the petitioner from the

petition premises he ought to have filed the suit against the petitioner before the

appropriate Civil Court to evict the petitioner from the petition premises. Therefore,

the RLTOP.No.13 of 2020 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

The XIII Small Causes Court at Chennai has erroneously given a finding that prior to

commencement of the new Act, the oral tenancy has been allegedly created between

the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent and as such the eviction petition in

RLTOP.No.13 of 2020 is not maintainable. Prior to the commencement of the new

Act, the petitioner has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the petition

premises and as such the question does not arise that the oral tenancy has been

allegedly created into between and the 2nd respondent and 1st respondent in respect

of the petition premises. At any moment, the 1st respondent would file execution

petition to execute the fair and decreetal order dated 15.02.2024 passed in

RLTOP.No.13 of 2020. The petitioner have a good case and there is a fair chance to

succeed in the above appeal. Therefore, he prays to grant a stay for all further

proceedings in pursuance to the fair and decreetal order dated 15.02.2024 passed in

RLTOP.No.13 of 2020. Unless, the petitioner will be put to serious loss and

irreparable hardship. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to

respondents.
 4

3. The averments made in the counter filed by the 1st respondent in short
as follows:

The 1st respondent is the absolute owner of the schedule property situated at

No.F2 Anderson Gardens, Anderson Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. The

said schedule property was leased out to the 2nd respondent vide Rental Agreement

dated 24.07.2017 for a period of 11 months. The 1st respondent sent a letter dated

07.06.2018 to the 2nd respondent to vacate the premises. To the shock and surprise,

the letter was returned to the 1st respondent with the caption 'left without intimation'.

The 1st respondent visited his property in the month of June 2018 and found that the

petitioner was occupying the property. On questioning him, the petitioner informed

that the 2nd respondent was the owner of the flat and he has borrowed a sum of Rs.20

lakhs from the petitioner and the 2nd respondent has permitted to the petitioner to

live in the property. The 1st respondent is the actual and true owner of the flat. The

action of the 1st respondent is sub-letting the flat is in clear violation of clause 11 of

the rental agreement dated 24.07.2017. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent called

the 1st respondent over the phone and informed that he will require 2 more months to

vacate the premises. During the 1st week of August 2018, the 1st respondent

received a phone call from the F4 Thousand lights police station stating that the

petitioner has given a complaint against the 1st respondent for disturbing his peaceful

possession over his property. During police enquiry, it came to know that the

petitioner is none other than the nephew of the 2nd respondent. The rental agreement

between the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent was already expired on
 5

30.06.2018 itself. The 1st respondent lodged a police complaint for the threats etc

for which an FIR in Cr.No.6 of 2019 was registered on 04.01.2019 for offences

u/s.406, 420, 506(i) and 120B of IPC. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are

hand in glove working to cheat and illegally enrich themselves from the property

belonging to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has lost a total sum of

Rs.25,91,500/- i.e., Rs.36,500 X 71 months = 25,91,500/- and the 1st respondent

reserves his right to recover the same. The petitioner has totally suppressed the fact

that a criminal case in C.C.No.5932 of 2023 is filed by the Inspector of Police,

Nungambakkam Police Station based on the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent

and as such this appeal is to be dismissed in limine. The petitioner/appellant has also

filed several miscellaneous petitions and has dragged the trial proceedings from 2019

to 2024 and now is further trying to drag the proceedings by way of the above appeal

causing further monetary loss to the 1st respondent. After the decree was passed in

favour of the 1st respondent, he instituted the execution proceedings in E.P.No.349 of

2024 before the XIII Small Causes Court and the next hearing date is 01.08.2024.

The 1st respondent is a senior citizen who had fought a long battle and still battling

new in the stage of executing the same. The 1st respondent have an unmarried

daughter and due to the economic loss caused by the petitioner/appellant and the 2nd

respondent, the 1st respondent stuck and unable to conduct his daughter's marriage.

The above fact is further causing mental agony for the 1st respondent at the age of 67

years. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

 6

4. Point for consideration:

Whether this petition is to be allowed or not?

5. POINT:

The petitioner/appellant filed this petition for stay the decree and Judgment

passed by the trial court in RLTOP.No.13 of 2020 dated 15.02.2024.

6. The Petitioner contention is that there is no jural relationship into between

the 1st respondent and the petitioner as landlord and tenant in respect of the petition

premises. The 1st respondent has handed over the possession of the petition premises

to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd Respondent has sub-let the premises to this petitioner

The 1st respondent has handed over the possession of the petition premises to the

petitioner prior to commencement of the new Act and the 2nd respondent was not in

possession of the petition premises. Therefore,the decree passed to evict the petitioner

in RLTOP.No.13 of 2020 is not at all maintainable. The 1st respondent would file

execution petition to execute the fair and decreetal order dated 15.02.2024 passed in

RLTOP.No.13 of 2020. The petitioner have a good case and there is a fair chance to

succeed in the above appeal. Therefore, prays to grant a stay for all further

proceedings in pursuance to the fair and decreetal order dated 15.02.2024 passed in

RLTOP.No.13 of 2020.
 7

7. The 1st respondent contention is that the 1st respondent is the absolute owner

of the schedule property situated at No.F2 Anderson Gardens, Anderson Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. The said schedule property was leased out to

the 2nd respondent vide Rental Agreement dated 24.07.2017 for a period of 11

months. The 1st respondent sent a letter dated 07.06.2018 to the 2nd respondent to

vacate the premises. To the shock and surprise, the letter was returned to the 1st

respondent with the caption 'left without intimation'. The 1st respondent visited his

property in the month of June 2018 and found that the petitioner was occupying the

property. On questioning him, the petitioner informed that the 2nd respondent was

the owner of the flat and he has borrowed a sum of Rs.20 lakhs from the petitioner

and the 2nd respondent has permitted to the petitioner to live in the property. The 1st

respondent is the actual and true owner of the flat. The action of the 1st respondent is

sub-letting the flat is in clear violation of clause 11 of the rental agreement dated

24.07.2017. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

8. Heard both sides arguments. The petitioner/Appellant preferred this appeal

as against the the decree and Judgment passed by the trial court in RLTOP.No.13 of

2020 dated 15.02.2024.. So far trial court records not yet received by this court.

Without perusing the records, this court cannot come to the conclusion whether the

petitioner is entitled for stay. Further, the 1st respondent produced the typed set of

papers. On perusal of the Rental Agreement dated 24.07.2017 the landlord/1st

 8

respondent executed a Rental Agreement in favour of 2 nd respondent Ahamed

International, Represented by Mr.Ahamed Arif for a period of 11 months, for a

monthly rent amount of Rs.36,500/-. The 2nd respondent sub-let the petition premises

to the petitioner and handed over the possession of the premises to him. The 1 st

respondent came to know that the petitioner was in possession of the premises.

Hence, he has filed a eviction petition in RLTOP.No.13/2020 before the XIII Small

Causes Court, Chennai and after full contest, eviction order was passed on

15.02.2024. Against which, the petitioner preferred this appeal. The 1 st respondent

moved Execution Petition before the Executing Court to execute the fair and

decreetal order passed in RLTOP.No.13 of 2020, dated 15.02.2024. The petitioner

wanted to stay the execution proceedings.

9. On the other hand the respondent stated that the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent are nephew and they are hand in glove working to cheat and illegally

enrich themselves from the property belonging to the 1st respondent. The 1st

respondent has lost a total sum of Rs.25,91,500/- i.e., Rs.36,500 X 71 months =

25,91,500/-. Therefore, it reveals that the 1st respondent has lost a sum of

Rs.25,91,500/- for the arrears of rental amount for the petition premises. In this

regard, the 1st respondent had taken effective steps to execute the decree by way of

execution proceedings. Further the petitioner has totally suppressed the fact

that a criminal case in C.C.No.5932 of 2023 is filed by the Inspector of Police,

 9

Nungambakkam Police Station based on the complaint lodged by the 1st respondent.

10. Since the appeal is pending and after hearing the arguments on both sides

and on perusal of entire records only this court come to the conclusion. Hence, this is

the premature stage. Therefore, without perusing the records, this court cannot come

to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for stay. Hence, this court is not

inclined to allow this petition.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Directly dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, which was computerized by her in

computer, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 5 th day of
November 2024.

RKP Digitally signed by R K P

TAMILARASI
TAMILARASI Date: 2024.11.05 16:00:50 +0530
III Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.

Both side witness and exhibits :-Nil

RKP Digitally signed by R K P

TAMILARASI
TAMILARASI Date: 2024.11.05 16:00:58 +0530
III Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
10

Draft/Fair: Order

I.A.No.1 of 2024

in
RLTA.No.79 of 2024
Dated: 05.11.2024

III Additional
City Civil Court,
Chennai.