The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the execution court to execute the order of the Rent Control Court under S.14 of the Act and the jurisdiction of the court to prevent the abuse of process under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Art.227 of the Constitution.

1. This petition, purported to be one under S.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is stated to be for a clarification of the order passed by this Court in C, M. P. No. 1246 of 1985 dated 15-1-1985 and for a direction to the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur, to execute the order in R. C. P. No. 8 of 1978.

2. R.C.P. No. 8 of 1978, filed by the petitioner herein, and his sister the 2nd respondent herein, under S.11 (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act), was allowed by the Rent Controller having found that they bonafide needed the. building for their own occupation. This order was confirmed by the Subordinate Judge, the District Court, and this court, in appeal and revisions; and admittedly the Special Leave Petition for appeal to the Supreme Court has been dismissed.

3. After this court dismissed C.R.P. No. 2271 of 1983 on 18-12-1984, confirming the judgment of the Appellate Authority, confirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, and before the 1st respondent herein moved the Supreme Court by the Special Leave Petition, the petitioner herein had filed C. M P. No. 1246 of 1985 praying for the issue of necessary directions to the Munsiff's Court, Payyannur,

to execute the order in R.C.P. No. 8 of 1978. This Court disposed of that petition by the order dated 15-1-1985 which reads as follows:

"Heard counsel on both sides. I need only state that it is the duty of the execution court to execute the order of the Rent Control Court ultimately confirmed by this Court. Since it is represented that the tenant-respondent proposes to file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and move for a stay of execution of the order, eviction will not be effected for a period of one month from today. The petition is disposed of as above".

Though the period of one month allowed to the 1st respondent herein for vacating the premises as per the order in C. M. P. No. 1246 of 1985 expired on 14-2-1985, the steps in execution did not proceed. On the other hand, according to the petitioner herein, the Munsiff's Court (the Execution Court) passed an order staying the proceedings, on an application (I.A. No. 274 of 1985 purported to be under S.47 of the C. P. C.) filed by the 1st respondent herein for a declaration that for the reason of the subsequent event, the order of eviction had become unexecutable.

4. It is necessary to mention here, for a proper appreciation of the circumstances leading to the filing of the present petition in this Court, the fact that in C. R. P. No. 2271 of 1983, the 1st respondent herein, who was the revision petitioner, had filed C. M. P. No. 29272 to admit a photostat copy of what was purported to be an agreement between the landlords and some third parties for sale of the 2nd petitioner's half share in the land mentioned therein. One of us (Balakrishna Menon, j.) before whom the present petition came up earlier, and who referred the matter to the Division Bench, for the reason that the 1st respondent herein bad raised a question of law relating to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the application, has, in Para.2 of the order of reference, quoted extensively from Para.3 of the order of this court dated 18-12-1984, dismissing the C. R. P., giving reasons for-disallowing the prayer in C M P. No. 29272 of 1983. We do not consider it necessary to repeat all what has been stated therein, except to emphasise the fact that the declaration that the order of: eviction was not executable, sought in I. A No. 274 of 1985, in the execution court, was on the basis of the very same document, which the 1st respondent wanted to get admitted as additional evidence in C. R. P. No: 2271 of 1983, which prayer was rejected by this court after having found that there was no merit in the contention based on the additional document sought to be admitted in evidence.

5. We are clear in our minds that what the 1st respondent-Society attempted, amounted to an abuse of the process of th