CRP/4340/2026 of E.Emmanuel Vs Thomas Daniel on 20 August 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.06.2026 passed in E.A.No.3 of 2026 in E.P.No.54 of 2025 in R.L.T.O.P.No.71 of 2021 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tambaram.

2. Heard Mr.G.V.Sridharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.Anuradha Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

CRP No. 4340 of 2026

3. The issue involved that arises for consideration is under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 (Act 42 of 2017), as amended by Act 39 of 2018. The petitioner suffered an order for recovery of possession in RLTOP.No.71 of 2021 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur. The said eviction order came to be passed on 26.11.2024. The petitioner has challenged the said order by preferring RLTA.No.5 of 2025 before the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu. In the meantime, taking advantage of there being no interim stay granted by the Tribunal, the respondent / landlord has proceeded to file the execution petition and the executing Court had dismissed an application in E.A.No.3 of 2026 filed by the petitioner seeking stay under Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC. It is aggrieved by the dismissal of E.A.No.3 of 2026 the present revision petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that directions may be given to the Rent Tribunal to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. He would further submit that, till such time, the execution proceedings may be kept in abeyance, as otherwise, the petitioner would subjected to serious prejudice.

5. Per contra Mrs.S.Anuradha Balaji appearing for the respondent / landlord would firstly and fairly concede that the petitioner is not in any arrears of rent as on date.

CRP No. 4340 of 2026

6. Secondly, it is her submission that despite having preferred an RLTA way back in 2025, for the past year and more, the petitioner has not been successful in obtaining an interim order or stay which impeded the respondent from initiating the execution proceedings. She would further state that Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC will not apply to the facts in the present case and therefore there is no infirmity in the order passed by the executing Court dismissing EA.No.3 of 2026.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. No doubt, the order passed in E.A.No.3 of 2026, does not call for any inference. Having noticed that there is no interim stay in the pending RLTA before the Rent Tribunal, the Executing Court has proceeded with the execution petition. Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC. is usefully extracted hereunder: “When Court may stay execution

(1) the Court to which a decree has been sent for execution shall, upon sufficient cause being shown, stay the execution of such decree for a reasonable time, to enable the judgment-debtor to apply to the Court by which the decree was passed, or to any Court having appellate jurisdiction in

CRP No. 4340 of 2026

respect of the decree or the execution thereof, for an order to stay execution, or for any other order relating to the decree or execution which might have been made by such Court of first instance or Appellate Court if execution had been issued thereby, or if application for execution had been made thereto.

(2) Where the property or person of the judgment-debtor has been seized under an execution, the Court which issued the execution may order the restitution of such property or the discharge of such person pending the result of the application.”

9. The said provision is only to facilitate the judgment debtor like the petitioner herein to move the appellate Court and obtain interim orders. This provision cannot be invoked after preferring an appeal and having been unsuccessful in obtaining interim stay before the appellate Court. Be that as it may, considering that the RLTA.No.5 of 2025 is now ripe for arguments, in the interest of the parties, moreso, considering that atleast the petitioner is not in arrears of rent, I am dismissing the civil revision petition with a direction to the Rent Tribunal namely the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu to dispose of the RLTA.No.5 of 2025 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that subject to the decision in the RLTA which is directed to be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the copy of the order, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with

CRP No. 4340 of 2026

the execution proceedings. The execution petition shall be disposed of within a period of thirty days thereafter. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition stands closed. 20-08-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rap To The District Munsif, Tambaram.

CRP No. 4340 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI, J. rap CRP No. 4340 of 2026 20-08-2026