2026:MHC:138IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Order reserved on : 03.12.2025 Order pronounced on : 09.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

CRP.No.4639 of 2025

& CMP.Nos.23440 & 23441 of 2025

M.M.Babu ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Young Men Christian Association,

Represented by their General Secretary P.Asir Pandian,

YMCA Building, No.223, N.S.C.Bose Road,

Chennai – 600 001.

2.S.B.Chandrakumar

3.C.Rahul Gupta ... Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

India, to set aside the order dated 17.09.2025 in E.A.SR.No.45179 of 2025

in E.P.No.275 of 2021 passed by the learned XIV Judge, Small Causes

Court at Chennai and thereby consequentially restore the possession of the

premises situate in the Ground Floor under the name and style of “New

Ramakrishna Lunch Home” in the western wing of the YMCA building at

No.223, N.S.C.Bose Road, Esplanade, Chennai – 600 001 to the revision

petitioner.

1/16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen

for Mr.P.D.Selvaraj

For Respondents: Mr.V.R.Thangavelu for R1

R2 and R3 vacated

ORDER

The revision petitioner is an obstructor, who filed an application

under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, claiming to be a bonafide tenant and not

being a party to the proceedings before the Rent Controller. The said

application has been dismissed at the SR stage, holding that the application

is not maintainable. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has

been filed.

2.I have heard Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, for Mr.P.D.Selvaraj, learned

counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned counsel

for the 1

st

respondent.

3.Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner would submit that the original tenants under the 1

st

respondent

were carrying on business under the name and style of New Ramakrishna

Lunch Home under the 1

st

respondent, as a tenant. He would further contend

2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

that the rent control proceedings were initiated against the erstwhile

predecessors in interest of the revision petitioner and eviction came to be

ordered in RCOP.No.1299 of 2018. Execution petition in E.P.No.275 of

2021 was filed by the 1

st

respondent. The petitioner obstructed to the

execution and therefore, the 1

st

respondent took out an application in

E.A.No.4 of 2025 for removal of obstruction. The executing Court allowed

the said application on 19.08.2025, after hearing the revision petitioner, as

well as the 1

st

respondent. Thereafter, the revision petitioner has been

dispossessed on 19.09.2025. The revision petitioner filed E.A.SR.No.45179

of 2025 under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, complaining of dispossession.

The said application has been rejected as not being maintainable.

4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further submit

that the revision petitioner is entitled to maintain an application under Order

XXI Rule 99 of CPC and the very language of the provision indicates that

any person other than the judgment debtor can take recourse to Rule 99 of

CPC to establish his rights in the property, from which, he has been

dispossessed. He would further state that merely because the removal of

obstruction petition in E.A.No.4 of 2025 has been allowed, it does not

prevent the revision petitioner from filing an application under Order XXI

3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rule 99 of CPC. He would also take me through certain correspondences

between the parties to reinforce his argument that the decree holder was very

much aware of the fact that the revision petitioner was the person actually

doing business under the name and style of “New Ramakrishna Lunch

Home” and they had also received a substantial sum of Rs.40 lakhs from the

petitioner towards arrears of rent payable by the judgment

debtors/respondents tenants. He would therefore state that the revision

petitioner was negotiating with the 1

st

respondent for clinching a fresh

agreement and mischievously the 1

st

respondent has proceeded to execute

the decree and dispossess the revision petitioner.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the

petitioner has an independent right in the subject property and unless he is

given an opportunity to prosecute his application under Order XXI Rule 99

of CPC, the petitioner would be put to serious prejudice and hardships. He

would rely on the following decisions:

1.Brahmdeo Chaudhary Vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal

and another, (1997) 3 SCC 694.

2.Silverline Forum Private Limited Vs. Rajiv Trust and

another, (1998) 3 SCC 723.

3.Mst.Hashmi @ Batuil Vs. Ali Ahmad and others,

Writ(C).No.47617 of 2008.

4.Asgar and others Vs. Mohan Varma and others,

(2020) 16 SCC 230.

4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5.Jini Dhanrajgir and another Vs. Shibu Mathew and

another, (2023) 20 SCC 76.

6.Per contra, Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned counsel appearing for the

1

st

respondent, referring to the definition of “ judgment debtor” under

Section 2(10) of CPC, would contend that the petitioner having failed in his

attempt to obtruct the execution petition, falls within the definition of a

judgment debtor and therefore, he cannot invoke Order XXI Rule 99 of

CPC, which is available only to a person who is not a judgment debtor. He

would further state that the executing Court has passed a detailed and well

considered order as to why the application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC

is not maintainable and when the very same issues were agitated by the

revision petitioner earlier, it is the contention of Mr.V.R.Thangavelu,

learned counsel for the 1

st

respondent that there is no merit in the revision

and no interference is warranted with the findings of the executing Court

that the Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC application is not maintainable.

7.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel on either side.

8.Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the RCOP proceedings.

5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The petitioner claims that he has taken over the business of “New

Ramakrishna Lunch Home” from the respondents/judgment debtors in the

execution petition. No doubt, as contended by Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, the 1

st

respondent was aware of the factum of the petitioner taking over the

business of the respondents/judgment debtors and there have been

negotiations between the 1

st

respondent and the petitioner with regard to

execution of a fresh lease agreement. It is the case of the 1

st

respondent that

despite opportunities given to the petitioner to come forward to pay a

negotiated sum towards the arrears of rent, which is due and payable by the

erstwhile tenants, the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity and it is only

after waiting for more than a year and that the 1

st

respondent has proceeded

with the execution petition.

9.Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC enables the decree holder to move the

executing Court to seek an order of removal of obstruction, that is made by

any person, while delivery is attempted by the decree holder. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has now settled the legal position that a person even other

than the judgment debtor can invoke Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC and he

need not wait to be dispossessed and invoke Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC.

However, in the present case, admittedly, it was the 1

st

respondent-decree

6/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

holder, who filed an application for removal of obstruction. The said

application was hotly contested by the petitioner and ultimately, the

executing Court has allowed the application and directed removal of

obstruction. It is thereafter that the revision petitioner has been dispossessed

from the petition premises as well. At that stage, the revision petitioner has

invoked Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC and contends that he is entitled to be

heard. The executing Court, noting that the petitioner was, in fact, an

obstructor, against whom the Order XXI Rule 97 application had been filed

and the rights of the petitioner having been already adjudicated before

delivery of possession, the petition under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC is not

maintainable.

10.The short point that arises for consideration in the present revision

is as to whether a person, who had an opportunity to obstruct the execution

under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC can have a second shot at obstruction, by

invoking Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, after being dispossessed. In this

regard, it would be useful to refer to the decisions that have been relied on

by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

11.In Brahmdeo Chaudhary's case, cited supra, the Hon'ble Supreme

7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Court held that a stranger to the decree, who claims an independent right,

title or interest in the decreetal property, can offer resistance even before

getting actually dispossessed, by taking resort to Order XXI Rule 97 of

CPC. In fact, in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph

No.8(2) has held that if a stranger to a decree is already dispossessed

relating to a property to which she claims any right before getting an

opportunity to resist or offer obstruction on the spot on account of his

absence from the place or for any other valid reason, then his remedy would

lie in filing an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, claiming that

his dispossession was illegal and that possession deserves to be restored to

him. This decision is relied on by Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen to contend that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a person can equally agitate his

grievance and claim for adjudication of his independent right, title and

interest in the decreetal property even after loosing possession as per Order

XXI Rule 99 of CPC. I am unable to countenance the argument of Mr.Abdul

Mubeen in this regard.

12.Both Order XXI Rules 97 and 99 of CPC apply in different

scenarios. Rule 97 comes into place where resistance is prior to execution

and whereas Rule 99 becomes available to a person, who has been

8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

dispossessed. The enquiry, which is contemplated under both Rules 97 and

99 is only under Rule 101. In the present case, the revision pettiner was

treated as an obstructor by the decree holder and an application for removal

of obstruction was filed in E.A.No.4 of 2022 an the executing Court, after

giving due and fair opportunity to the revision petitioner, has allowed the

removal of obstruction petition. In such circumstances, it is interesting to see

if the very same person, who agitated his rights in an application under

Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC can additionally resort to Order XXI Rule 99 of

CPC, merely because pursuant to the order of removal of obstruction, he has

been dispossessed. The answer would be an emphatic no.

13.The avenue, that is made available under Rule 99 is only to

persons who did not have an opportunity to obstruct the delivery warrant

before execution. When admittedly the revision petitioners' claims have

been adjudicated in the Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC application, it will not

entitle the revision petitioner to once again re-agitate the very same issues,

by taking out an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC. The claim of

the revision petitioner is not anything different from what he has taken in the

Order XXI Rule 97 application. In such circumstances, when due enquiry

9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

has been conducted and orders have been passed under Order XXI Rule 101

of CPC, there is no purpose in permitting the petitioner over and again to

canvas the same questions that have already been dealt with in the removal

of obstruction petition. In view of the same, the application under Order

XXI Rule 99 of CPC is clearly not maintainable.

14.Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel would also rely on the

subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which have all

followed the ratio laid down in Brahmdeo Chaudhary's case only. However,

I have to deal with the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Mst.Hashmi

@ Batuil's case, cited supra. That was a case where the Allahabad High

Court had held that an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC was

maintainable and directed the executing court to enquire into the same on

merits.

15.Very strong reliance is placed on the said decision by Mr.R.Abdul

Mubeen, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. In the said case, a third

party had filed an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, the Court

finding that the earlier applications filed by the petitioner would not amount

to res judicata held that the petitioner therein was entitled to maintain his

10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC. In the case before the

Allahabad High Court, the application that were filed by the petitioner prior

to moving the application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC was for stay of

the execution. The said application was dismissed on the ground of

maintainability, finding that the relief of injunction granted in favour of the

petitioner was in respect of a different property and not the property, which

is the subject matter of the execution. Yet another application for stay was

also dismissed on the ground that the earlier application for stay had been

rejected. It was in these circumstances that the Allahabad High Court found

that the claim of the petitioner had not been adjudicated on merits and held

the application under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC to be maintainable.

However, in the present case, the facts are entirely different.

16.The petitioner's claim has already been adjudicated in the

application for removal of obstruction. The petitioner is not setting up any

new case after being dispossessed, excepting for invocation of Order XXI

Rule 99 of CPC. The petitioner having not been successful in the Order XXI

Rule 99 of CPC application cannot maintain a fresh application under Order

XXI Rule 99 of CPC, merely because he has been subsequently

dispossessed. The object of both Order XXI Rule 97, as well as Order XXI

11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rule 99 of CPC are to give an opportunity to strangers like the revision

petitioner to have their rights adjudicated in the execution petition. It is not

open to the petitioner to take recourse to both Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, as

well as Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC, especially, after having lost the battle in

the Order XXI Rule 97 CPC application. In view of the above, I do not find

any merit in the revision petition. There is no infirmity in the order of the

executing Court, dismissing the Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC application as

not maintainable.

17.In fact, the argument of the Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned counsel

for the 1

st

respondent that having failed in his attempt to obstruct to the

delivery in the application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of CPC, the

petitioner, would qualify to be a judgment debtor under Section 2(10) of

CPC. I find force in the said submissions of the learned counsel for the 1

st

respondent.

18.Section 2(10) defines a judgment debtor to be a person against

whom a decree has been passed or an order capable of execution has been

made. Certainly, the revision petitioner is not a person against whom the

decree has been passed in the instant case. However, once the application for

removal of obstruction was allowed, then the revision petitioner is a person

12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

against whom the order made is capable of execution which brings him

within the ambit of “judgment debtor” as defined in Section 2(10) of CPC.

If this interpretation is extended to the petitioner, then he also is to be treated

as a judgment debtor and in which event, he cannot invoke Order XXI Rule

99 of CPC, which is available only to any person other than the judgment

debtor. Even viewed from this angle, I do not see how the petition filed

under Order XXI Rule 99 of CPC is maintainable. There is no merit in the

revision.

19.In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Connected Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

09.01.2026

Neutral Citation: Yes/No

Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

Index : Yes / No

ata

13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

To

The XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

14/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

P.B. BALAJI,J.

ata

Pre-delivery order made in

CRP.No.4639 of 2025

& CMP.Nos.23440 & 23441 of 2025

15/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

09.01.2026

16/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis