1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION) FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA O.A.No.941 OF 2010 IN C.S.No.763 of 2010 1. M.R.Sheik Abdulla Alias MR Sheik Abdul Rahim S/o Alhaj A.Mohammed Rafi 20 Big Mosque Street, Ellis Road, Mount Road, Madras - 600 002. 2. A.Khader Gani S/o. Amir Khan Old No.108, 4th Street, Nethaji Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081. 3. A.Nazeer Hussain S/o. Amir Khan Old No.108, 4th Street, Nethaji Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai - 600 081. 4. M.R.Rasool Khan S/o. Alhaj A.Mohammed Rafi No.4, Kumaraswamy Street, Ellis Road, Mount Road, Chennai - 600 002. 5. M.R.Mohammed Ali S/o. Alhaj A.Mohammed Rafi No.4, Kumaraswamy Street, Ellis Road, Mount Road, Chennai - 600 002. 6. M.R.Deen Oil S/o. Alhaj A.Mohammed Rafi No.4, Kumaraswamy Street, Ellis Road, Mount Road, Chennai - 600 002. ... Applicants/Plaintiffs https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 -Vs. 1. P. Madurai S/o. late Ponnuswamy Naicker, Old No.48/3, New No.76, Ellaiamman Koil Street, Kottur, Chennai - 600 085. 2. P.Marimuthu S/o. ate Ponnuswamy Naicker Old No.48/1, New No.76, Ellaiamman Koil Street, Kottur, Chennai - 600 085. 3. Gangammal W/o. Late E.Kapali No.52, Ellamman Koil Street, Kottur, Chennai - 600 085. 4. Amsaveni W/o. Elumalai, Pulikudivanam Village, Thiruvadisoolam, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. 5. S.Shanthi W/o. late P.Seeyalam 6. S.Sangeetha D/o. late P.Seeyalam 7. S.Sarala D/o. late P.Seeyalam 8. S.Saranya D/o. late P.Seeyalam 9. S.Sathya, D/o. late P.Seeyalam 5 to 9 residing at Old No.48/2, New No.78, Ellamman Koil Street, Kottur, Chennai - 600 085. 10. Mrs.S.Kanchana Sivakumar W/o. R.Sivakumar No.51/22, Pachayappa Chettiyar Street, Ellis Road, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 11. The Abhiramapuram Fund Ltd., rep by its Administrative officer having its registered office at New No.97, Old No.65, Dr.Ranga Road, Abhiramapuram, Chennai-600 018. ...Respondents/Defendants Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint an Advocate Receiver to take possession of the suit property and administer the same by receiving the rents from the respective tenants and other income from the properties and to account for pending disposal of the above suit. This Original Application coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order: The applicants / plaintiffs have filed the suit for possession and damages for use and occupation of the premises in possession of defendant nos.1, 2 and 5. 2.The case of the applicants / plaintiffs is that the original owner of the property had mortgaged the property and on failure to repay the secured loan, the mortgagee brought it for sale by auctioneer. 3.The Defendant no.10 purchased the property in auction, who, after the purchase, filed Rent Control Original Petition (RCOP) for eviction of defendant nos.1, 2 and 5, by treating them as tenants. 4.The RCOP was contested, wherein, the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. The learned Rent Controller https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 dismissed the petition for want of relationship of the landlord and tenants. 5.The defendant no.10, in view of the finding recorded, in one of the petition, withdrew other two petitions also. 6. The property was thereafter sold by defendant no.10 to the plaintiff, who has now filed a suit for possession and damages. 7.The suit is contested by defendant nos.1, 2 and 5, by challenging the sale by auctioneer to be not binding on their ownership rights. 8. Be that as it may, it is yet to be determined, as to what right the plaintiffs visa-a-vis defendants has. The plaintiffs have also claimed damages for use and occupation of the premises, which is yet to be determined after trial. The validity of auction in favour of defendant no.10 is also to be adjudicated in a suit filed by non applicant. 9.An Advocate receiver cannot be appointed to disturb the settled possession of the non applicant. By way of interim direction, this Court can maintain "status quo" but disputed questions are not to be decided in summary manner. The plaintiffs can always prove damages for use and occupation and recover it from defendant nos.1, 2 and 5, in the event of success in the suit. The Advocate Receiver cannot be appointed on mere asking to disturb undisputed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 possession. 10.No ground for appointment of Advocate Receiver is made out, in the facts and circumstances of this case. Nor any direction can be issued for recovery of rent, as rejection of rent petition shows that there is no relationship of tenand and landlord. 11.Consequently, this application, being without merit, is ordered to be dismissed. No costs. Sd/-V.K.S.J 25.11.2011 //Certified to be a true copy// Dated this the day of 2012. R.s/31.01.2012 COURT OFFICER From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/