Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

Under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 227 by the claimant in a proceeding for execution of an order of eviction passed by the Rent Control Court is an order passed by the Execution Court, viz. the Principal Munsiff Court dismissing the claim petition and directing delivery of the petition schedule building in favour of the respondents/decree holders.

2. Sri. V.V. Surendran, learned counsel for the second respondent/degree holder raises two preliminary points of objection. Firstly he submits that the remedy of the petitioner lies before the District Court in the form of a revision under Section 14 of Act 2 of 1965. Secondly, he submits that delivery is already effected.

3. As for the first point of objection, we notice the judgment of Balagangadharan Nair (J) in Kuruvilla V. Kesavan (1980 KLT 364), wherein the learned Judge holds that execution contemplated by Section 14 of the Rent Control Act is the execution of the orders against the parties thereto. It does not contemplate investigation of obstructions offered by third parties or the orders in such proceedings. According to the learned Judge, orders passed on obstructions and claims do not fall within the ambit of orders “passed in execution under this section” in the words of the proviso to Section 14, although they would be orders in the course of the execution proceedings. Balakrishna Menon(J) in Dr. Yogiraj V. Ravindranath(1983 KLT 499) practically endorses the same view.

4. We are in agreement with the views taken by Balagangadharan Nair (J) and P.C. Balakrishna Menon(J). The petitioner is not a party to the order of eviction, which is sought to be executed. He is a third party claimant. His claim petition/obstruction petition was dismissed by the Principal Munsiff Court, a regular Civil Court. His remedy is an appeal under Rule 103 of Order 21 CPC and not a revision under Section 14 of Act of 1965.

5. As for the second point of objection raised by Mr. Surendran, it is submitted by Sri. P.K. Aboobacker, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, that as per the instructions received by him his client continues to be in possession. Under the above circumstances, even as we dismiss the writ petition on the reason that the same is not maintainable and that the writ petitioner’s remedy lies elsewhere, we direct that the interim order already passed by this court stopping delivery will continue for a period of 10 more days from today provided delivery is not already effected.