K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The petitioners in the Original Petitions are tenants of buildings belonging to the respondents. The Rent Control Petitions were filed by the landlord against the tenants under S. 11(2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. In the Rent Control Petitions, compromise petition was signed and filed by the tenants and the landlord. Clause (3) of the compromise reads as follows:

"3. The respondent admits that the rent payable from February 2012 is in arrears and he has no objection for passing an order of eviction under S. 11(2)(b) of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 2 of 1965. She prays for five months period for payment of arrears of rent as contemplated under S. 11(2)(c) of the Act and the petitioner has no objection for the same. If arrears of rent is not paid within five months the petitioner is entitled to execute the order of eviction."

2. The tenants did not pay the arrears of rent within the time stipulated in me compromise. After me expiry of five months referred to in the compromise, the landlord filed Execution Petitions. The landlord also filed applications to dispense with notice to the tenants. Since two years had not elapsed from the date of the order, the executing court allowed the application to dispense with notice and ordered delivery.

3. Delivery was ordered to be effected on or before 23.1.2014. Amin attempted to deliver the property on 21.1.2014. The tenants obstructed delivery. These Original Petitions were filed on 23.1.2014 praying to set aside the proceedings dated 10.1.2014 in the Execution Petitions dispensing with notice to the tenants and ordering delivery of the property.

4. Sri. T. Madhu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in view of R. 105 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the executing court was not justified in ordering delivery without issuing notice to the respondents (tenants) in the E.P. The learned counsel also submitted that R. 105 would override R. 22 of Order XXI.

5. Sri. D. Krishna Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord, submitted that R.105 would apply to only those cases where the executing court had issued notice to the respondents and this is clear from sub-rule (3) of R.105.

6. To understand the rival contentions, it is apposite to extract R. 22 and R. 105 of Order XXI.

"22. Notice to show cause against execution in certain cases.--(1) Where an application for execution is made,--

(a) more than two years after the date of the decree, or

(b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree or where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of Section 44A, or

(c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudged to be an insolvent,

the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him:

Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence of more than two years having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution if the application is made within two years from the date of the last order against the party against whom execution is applied for, made on any previous application for execution, or in consequence of the application being made against the legal representative of the judgment - debtor if upon a previous application for execution against the same person the Court has ordered execution to issue against him.

(2) Nothing in the foregoing sub-rule shall be deemed to preclude the Court from issuing any process in execution of a decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, if for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice.

105. Hearing of application.-- (1) The Court, before which an application under any of