Skip to content


A. Arunagiri Vs. S.P. Rathinasami - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1971)1MLJ220
AppellantA. Arunagiri
RespondentS.P. Rathinasami
Cases ReferredMaylisami Gounder v. Mummoorthi Chettiar C.R.P. No.
Excerpt:
- - 287, is no longer good law, as it has been reversed in mayilsami gounder v......to set aside the ex parte order and was successful. basing on the observations in raso moopanar v. ramamurthi iyer (1967) 1 m.l.j. 287, the respondent sought re-delivery of the property from the petitioner which the court below directed. it is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.2. the contention pf mr. venkataraman, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ratio in raso moopanar v. ramamurthi iyer (1967) 1 m.l.j. 287, is no longer good law, as it has been reversed in mayilsami gounder v. mummoorthi chettiar c.r.p. no. 439 of 1967, by a division bench of this court to which the learned chief justice is a party.3. the point involved in this case is whether, in the absence of an express statutory provision which would enable court to direct.....
Judgment:

T. Ramaprasada Rao, J.

1. The landlord is the petitioner. He filed an application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the respondent who is unfortunately not represented before me. The petitioner obtained an ex parte order of eviction and pursuant thereto took possession of the property from the respondent. The respondent, however, filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and was successful. Basing on the observations in Raso Moopanar V. Ramamurthi Iyer (1967) 1 M.L.J. 287, the respondent sought re-delivery of the property from the petitioner which the Court below directed. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

2. The contention pf Mr. Venkataraman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the ratio in Raso Moopanar v. Ramamurthi Iyer (1967) 1 M.L.J. 287, is no longer good law, as it has been reversed in Mayilsami Gounder v. Mummoorthi Chettiar C.R.P. No. 439 of 1967, by a Division Bench of this Court to which the learned Chief Justice is a party.

3. The point involved in this case is whether, in the absence of an express statutory provision which would enable Court to direct restitution, it could do so ex debito justitiae. As a matter of fact, Alagiriswami, J., in Raso Moopanar v. Ramamurthi Iyer (1967) 1 M.L.J. 287, is of the view that the power of a civil Court to order restitution is not wholly governed by Section 144 Civil Procedure Code. The learned Judge proceeded on the basis that a wrong order should not be perpetuated by keeping it alive and respecting the same. The learned Chief Justice in Maylisami Gounder v. Mummoorthi Chettiar C.R.P. No. 439 of 1967, observed:

It may be unfortunate that notwithstanding the reversal of the eviction order the tenant is unable to get restoration. But, it is for the Legislature to provide for the situation.

4. It is, therefore, clear that in the absence of an express provision or a provision by necessary intendment which would enable a civil Court to direct re-delivery, the civil Court does not possess such power.

The order of the Court below is, therefore, wrong and the same is set aside. The civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //