CRP/5016/2026 of R.Balamurugan Vs B.Niveditha (Minor) on 27 August 2026

ORDER

The present revision petition is at the instance of the father of the first respondent, aggrieved by return of an Application under Section 47 CPC, filed in the Execution Proceeding filed by the first respondent and natural guardian in E.P. No.1024 of 2025.

2. The Executing Court (Rent Court) has returned the Application, stating that an Application under Section 47 CPC, is not maintainable at the instance of the third party to the proceedings. Challenging the said order, the petitioner who is none else than the father of the first respondent/landlady, has come up by way of this revision petition.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the issue of guardianship is at large before the Hon’ble Division Bench in OSA proceedings, however, he fairly admits that the mother has been appointed as guardian by the learned Single Judge of this Court on the original side. The first respondent through her mother, who was appointed as a guardian by this Court, though pursuant to an exparte order, has initiated eviction proceedings against the second respondent, who is a tenant in respect of the premises belonging to the first respondent. In the said eviction petition filed under Section 21 (2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, (in short 'TNRRRLT Act') the tenant sought for time to vacate and did not contest the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. In fact, it is an admitted case that the property has been settled on the first respondent, minor, by the grandfather Ramar, who is the father of the revision petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent brings to my notice that till date, the said settlement deed has not been challenged by the petitioner. The only contentious issues are with regard to the guardianship between the father and mother of the first respondent. He would therefore states that there is no error committed by the Rent Court in returning the application under Section 47 CPC.

5. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Executing Court, returning the Application under Section 47 CPC, filed by the father of the respondent, who is admittedly a third party. Moreover under Section 39 of the TNRRRLT Act, Execution Proceedings are to be conducted in a summary manner and the Executing Court has to dispose of the Execution Petition within a period of 30 days and strict Rules of procedure contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the Execution Proceedings.

6. In such view of the matter, the proper remedy for the petitioner, if any, is only before the Hon’ble Division Bench and not before the Executing Court, that too, in Execution Petition filed pursuant to an order of recovery of possession. It is not denied by the petitioner himself that the property has been settled on his minor daughter by his father late, Ramar. In such circumstances, the filing of the Eviction Petition by the mother, who was admittedly appointed by this Court in guardian proceedings, though subject matter of the OSA which is pending, cannot be found fault with. The first respondent is entitled to proceed with the Execution P.B.BALAJI, J. Petition and take delivery. If at all it is the apprehension of the petitioner that the mother, taking advantage of being appointed as guardian may act adversely to the interest of the minor, that is the daughter of the petitioner, it is always open to the petitioner, to move an appropriate application before the Hon’ble Division Bench and seek interim protection.

7. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above liberty. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. 27.08.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP To The Judge, XII Small Cause Court, Chennai (Rent Court) CRP. No.5016 of 2026 and CMP. No.21842 of 2026