AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 266 wordsA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—Under this revision, the order passed in unnumbered RCA SR. No. 11042 of 2007 on the file of VII
Judge, Court of Small Causes , Chennai is challenged.
A perusal of the impugned order will go to show that under the unnumbered RCA SR. No. 11042 of 2007, the revision petitioner herein as the
appellant therein had challenged the order passed by the executing Court in M.P.SR Nos. 8835,8836 and 8837 of 2007 which is not maintainable
u/s 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.
3) Section 18(1) ....
Section 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 reads as follows:
An order passed in execution under Sub-section (1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision.
Even in S. Mohammed Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another, and Purushotham Chettiar v. Puskraj Jain 1980 TLNJ 155 at 157, the view
taken by the Appellate Authority in RCA SR. No. 11042 of 2007 has been strengthened. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the
civil revision petition.
At this juncture, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that he has got some grievance in respect of the order
passed by the Executing Court (14th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai) in respect of the properties scheduled to the execution petition. If it is
so, it is open to the revision petitioner to move with necessary application before the Executing Court for redressal.
In fine, with the above observation, this revision petition is dismissed before admission.