(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the Fair and decreetal Order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Learned XIV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in E.A.No.01 of 2023 in E.P.No.188 of 2023 in R.L.T.O.P.No.410 of 2020 and consequently, allow E.A.No.01 of 2023 as prayed for, by adjudicating the right, title, and interest of the petitioners over the subject property and upholding their resistance and obstruction to the execution of the decree in R.L.T.O.P.No.410 of 2020.)

1. The petitioners claiming to be the original owners of the premises, demised under the RLTOP proceedings sought to obstruct to the execution of the decree, by taking out an application under Order XXI Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code. The said application has been dismissed by the Executing Court (Rent Court), as against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

2. Heard Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mr.S. Vijayanand, learned counsel appearing for petitioners.

3. Taking me through the registered documents that are relied upon by the petitioners, Mr. Vijayanand, learned counsel appearing for petitioners would state that, the petitioners where in fact tracing title to the suit property, which is the subject property under various registered documents, culminating in testamentary proceedings and probate order in O.P.No.588 of 2010. He would further state that the vendor, through whom the first respondent is claiming title, did not even have title to convey the property in favour of the first respondent in the year 1988. He further states that the petitioners ought to be given a fair opportunity to obstruct the decree, and the Executing Court has, without considering the substantial rights put forth by the petitioners, rejected their application.

4. Per contra, Mr.T.N. Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/ landlord would state that the petitioners were aware of the factum of possession being with the first respondent, even in the earlier round of rent control proceedings under the then Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 in R.C.O.P. No.1512 of 2009. The said RCOP was filed by the paternal aunts of the petitioners herein, claiming recovery of possession by evicting the respondents therein, including the first respondent herein. It is seen that the paternal aunts of the petitioners herein themselves sought to implead the revision petitioners herein, and the said application was dismissed in the presence of the petitioners, clearly stating that, it is open to the petitioners to move into the competent civil court, as, in rent control proceedings, the issues of title cannot be gone into.

5. Admittedly, the petitioners did not take up the matter further, pursuant to the order dated 27.06.2011 in M.P.No.572 of 2010 in R.C.O.P.No.1512 of 2009. It is also brought to my notice that subsequently, the RCOP Proceedings also ended in dismissal and no further steps were taken by the paternal aunts of the petitioners, to evict their alleged tenants from the demised property.

6. The first respondent herein claiming under the sale deed 19.01.1998 and also alleging that he had let out the property to S.Kannan and S.Ramasamy, filed R.L.T.O.P. No.410 of 2020 before the IV Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Court). The tenants contested the RLTOP, however pending the RLTOP, the first respondent gave up the said Mr.S.Ramasamy contending that, he is a sub-tenant under Mr.S.Kannan. Subsequently, the Rent Court ordered eviction on 29.09.2022. I find from the order of the Rent Court that the tenant of the first respondent had categorically admitted the factum of tenancy under the first respondent and therefore, there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Rent Court in the first place, in entertaining the RLTOP and ordering eviction.

7. The present objection of the petitioners appears to be under an independent right arising out of probate proceedings in Probate O.P.No.588 of 2010. As already discussed even in the earlier round of litigation, which was initiated by the paternal aunts of the petitioners, liberty was given to the petitioners to file a civil suit before the competent civil court, way back in June 2011, but no suit was instituted by the petitioners. Thereafter, close to 15 years and only when the eviction order was sought to be executed by the first respondent, the petitioners have woken up and come forward with the application under Order XXI Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code.

8. Section 39 of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibility of Landlords and Tenants Act, (Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017), clearly excludes the operation of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Execution Petitions under the said Act have to be disposed of within the period of 30 days. Therefore at the outset, I do not see how an application failed under Order XXI Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code, can be maintained before the Executing Court. An order passed by me in C.R.P.No.5723 of 2025 dated 16.12.2025 has also been relied upon in this regard by Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan, wherein I have held that, in view of the mandate of Section 39, provisions of Civil Procedure Code are expressively excluded for the purpose of execution petitions arising under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibility of Landlords and Tenants Act, (Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017). It is also brought to my notice by Mr.T.N. Rajagopalan that, there is yet another Section 47 application that has been taken out by an alleged tenant, claiming under the petitioners. The said application is also clearly not maintainable.

9. It is always open to the petitioners to initiate appropriate legal proceedings to protect their independent right, title and interest, if any. It is not open to the petitioners to obstruct the delivery of possession in the Execution Petition, which has been filed by the first respondent, pursuant to the contested order of delivery of possession in R.L.T.O.P.No.410 of 2020. Admittedly, an order of delivery has been passed and the application for obstruction has also been dismissed on merits.

10. In the light of the above discussions and in view of the fact, neither Section 47 nor Order XXI Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code applications can be maintained in execution petitions arising under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibility of Landlords and Tenants Act, (Tamil Nadu Act 42 of 2017), as amended by an Act 39 of 2018, I do not see any merits in the above revision petition. However, considering the fact that the petitioners are claiming under registered settlement deeds as well as the Probate order granted way back in the year 2012, it is always open to the petitioners to work out their rights in an independent manner by instituting a civil suit before the competent civil court. For the limited purposes of giving a breathing time to the petitioners, to obtain suitable interim orders before the Competent Civil Court, the order of delivery shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and in the event of the petitioners not being successful in obtaining any interim orders in the proposed suit, if any to be filed by them, it shall be open to the Executing Court to proceed with the EP and ensure that the delivery warrant is executed. It is needless to state that if any such suit is filed the first respondent shall be entitled to contest the suit and take up all defences open to him, in accordance with law, including limitation.

11. With the above directions, this civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs.