The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff praying to revise the order dated 18.9.2009 passed by the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.16989 of 2009 in O.S.No.8655 of 2009 and grant necessary relief in the form of an interim injunction.
2. The revision petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.8655 of 2009 for the following reliefs:-
"For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants or any other person claiming through or under them from occupying or letting out the premises, bearing No.13/22, 2nd Cross Street, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020 and more particularly described in the schedule hereunder."
In that suit, the grievance of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the respondents/defendants/landlords had initiated Rent Control Proceedings in RCOP No.276 of 2009 on the file of XV Rent Controller (XV Assistant Judge), Small Causes Court, Chennai, and an ex parte order of eviction was obtained. Consequently, Execution Petition No.261 of 2009 was filed and based on the orders passed by the Execution Court, the possession of the premise was taken over by the landlords.
3. To ensure that the landlords do not deal with the property so as to defeat his right, the suit O.S.No.8655 of 2009 has been filed by the revision petitioner/plaintiff for the relief as stated above. Pending suit I.A.No.16989 of 2009 was filed by the revision petitioner for the following relief:-
".. interim injunction restraining the Respondents, their men, agents, servants or any other person claiming through or under them from letting out the premises, bearing No.13/22, 2nd Cross Street, Kasturba Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020 and more particularly described in the schedule hereunder"
The court below after perusing the documents and pleadings ordered notice returnable by 5.10.2009.
4. The grievance of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that he had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief and the court below merely ordered notice. According to the revision petitioner/plaintiff, if the landlords lease out the property to the third party, it will complicate the rent control proceedings and also affect the valuable right of the revision petitioner/plaintiff.
5. The interim relief sought for is the same as the main relief in the suit. It is not disputed that based on the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Court, Execution Petition was ordered and the possession was taken over by the landlords, the respondents herein. At this point of time, respondents are in possession of the property. The court below declined to grant any interim order at the first instance, however, ordered notice to the respondents fixing the date of hearing as 5.10.2009.
6. The contention of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the service of notice in the rent control proceedings and the execution proceedings was not proper. It is a matter for evidence.
7. As far as the suit O.S.No.8655 of 2009 is concerned, the court below only ordered notice to the respondents and fixed the date of hearing as 5.10.2009. As to what interim relief should be granted to the revision petitioner/plaintiff is for the court below to decide based on the material available on record as well as pleadings of the rival parties.
8. At this stage, this court is not inclined to pass one or other orders, thereby affecting the right of the respondents/defendants who has to be heard in the matter on merits. However, in this case, it would suffice, if the court below is directed to dispose off the I.A.No.16989 of 2009 at an early date without granting unnecessary adjournment after hearing both parties. At present, this court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the proceedings of the court below.
9. The trial court is directed to dispose off I.A.No.16989 of 2009 in O.S.No.8655 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible after service of notice on the respondents/defendants. It is needless to state that the I.A.No.16989 of 2009 will be heard and disposed off on merits without granting unnecessary adjournments. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed off. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ts To The XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai