Kailasam, CJ.- This appeal is filed against the order of the City Civil Court in C.M.P.No.41 of 1975 (in O.S.No.3023 of 1961), an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor praying for an order that the decree in S.A.No.83 of 1965 was not executable under section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960). The Court accepted the contention and allowed the petition holding that the decree in the second appeal (S.A.No.83 of 1965) in favour of the appellant herein was not executable:

The decree-holder has now preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal.

2. The only question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the respondents are tenants entitled to the benefits of section 10 of Tamil Nadu Act XVIII of 1960. It is necessary to set out the relevant facts in this dispute between landlord and tenant which commenced in 1961 and has lasted for over fifteen years. On 20th February, 1954 a lease deed was executed between the appellant’s father (landlord) and K.D. Moorjani (tenant). On 4th April, 1961 the landlord terminated the tenancy and on 4th October, 1961 the landlord filed O.S.Noi 3023 of 1961 on the file of the III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for evicting the tenant, Moorjani. On 30th November, 1961 the suit was decreed ex parte for possession. In pursuance of the ex parte decree the landlord took possession in execution of the decree in E.P.No.210 of 1962. The next day, i.e., 13th February, 1962, the tenant filed a petition, T.A.No.180 of 1962, for setting aside the ex Parte decree. On 5th May, 1962 T.A.No.180 of 1962 was dismissed. On 29th October, 1962 the Principal Judge, City. Civil Court, allowed the appeal filed by the tenant in C.M.A.No.39 of 1962, set aside the ex parte decree and restored the suit. After the suit was restored and after fresh trial, the suit was decreed on 8th February, 1964. On the same day an execution petition filed by the tenant for restitution was dismissed. After the suit was decreed, on 10th June, 1964 an amendment was made to the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, withdrawing the exemption in the case of non-residential buildings and providing that all pending proceedings relating to such buildings for which exemption was withdrawn shall abate. On 8th December, 1964 the Additional Judge, City Civil Court, allowed the appeal filed by the tenant in A.S.No.130 of 1964 and dismissed the suit. He also ordered restitution of possession to the tenant. The tenant took redelivery of possession on 23rd February, 1965. The landlord preferred an appeal (S.A.No. 83 of 1965) to this Court against the judgment in A.S.N0. 130. of 1964. While it was pending, on 2nd January, 1967, Moorjani died and his legal representatives were brought on record. On 10th December, 1974 this Court allowed S.A. No. 83 of 1965 reversing the judgment in A.S. No. 130 of 1964 and restored the decree for possession in OS. No. 3023 of 1961. C.M.S.A.No. 4 of 1965 filed by the landlord against the order directing restitution to the tenant was also allowed by this Court. The petitions filed by the respondents for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court were dismissed on 23rd December, i9/4. The special leave petition to the Supreme Court also met with the same fate on 15th January, 1975. The dispute now before us arises after this stage.

3. In pursuance of the decree obtained in the second appeal, the landlord contemplated taking execution proceedings. In order to forestall it, the respondents filed C.M.P. No. 7673 of 1974 praying that, if the landlord filed any execution petition, they must be given notice and that execution must be stayed. The landlord filed a petition for execution on 23rd December, 1974. On the next day notice of the execution petition was given to the legal representatives of the tenant, and they filed C.M.P. No. 41 of 1975 under section 47 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document