High Court can exercise its power u/s 115 of the Code at any stage of proceeding.

By consent of parties, the main CRPs are taken up for disposal.

2. The above CRPs have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the obstructors against the order and decree dated 02.11.2004 made in M.P.Nos.493 of 2004 and 495/2004 in EP.No.78 of 2001 in RCOP.No.982 of 1999 on the file of the XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

3. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

The first respondent filed a petition against one Gomathi, a tenant, for fixing fair rent in an RCOP and the fair rent was fixed as Rs.49,000/- by the Rent Controller. But the rent was not paid by the tenant. Therefore, R1 filed RCOP 982 of 1999 for eviction on the ground of willful default. By order dated 19.07.2000, eviction was ordered by the Rent Controller. Thereafter, EP.No.78 of 2001 was filed against the said Gomathi/tenant and when the bailiff went to execute the order of the Court, the 11 obstructors (R.3 to R.13) resisted the execution of the order of the Court. They claimed that they became tenants under one Nirmala. Therefore, R1 filed M.P.No.231 of 2001 for removal of the Obstructors and that was allowed on 11.03.2002. The appeal in RCA.No.237 of 2002 by the 11 obstructors was dismissed on 05.03.2004. Against that CRP.No.716 of 2004 was filed; that was also dismissed. Thereafter, the obstructors filed SLP before the Supreme Court and that was dismissed on 22.11.2004.

4. In the mean while, MP.Nos.493, 494 and 495 of 2004 were filed by the three persons before the Rent Controller to "record them" as obstructors. They claimed that they were in occupation of a portion of the premises; they became tenant through one Vasathi Devi. Vasathi Devi had earlier filed a suit in C.S.No.537 of 2004 for declaration of title of the property and also for permanent injunction. In that an application was filed for injunction restraining the first respondent from interfering with the possession; but that was rejected by this Court. While rejecting the application, the High Court has found that the lease agreement alleged to have been executed by Vasathi Devi in favour of the obstructors were "forged" and the High Court directed the execution Court to proceed with the E.P. The first respondent filed MP.No.707 to 709 of 2004 to strike off the petitioners in the said MP.Nos.493 to 495 of 2004. The Rent Controller passed a detailed order and allowed M.P.Nos.707 to 709 of 2004. Against that, the petitioners in M.P.Nos.493 of 2004 and 495 of 2004 and the respondents in M.P.Nos.707 and 709 of 2004 have preferred these revision petitions.

5. The learned Senior counsels Mr.R.Thiagarajan and S.V.Jayaraman submitted that in the E.P. proceedings, when the obstructors filed a petition and it has been taken on file that has to be decided as if it is a suit even though the petition was filed in EP; a separate suit need not be filed (as per Order XXIX, Rule 97 CPC). While so, the Rent Controller did not complete the proceedings. From the order, it is seen that P.W.1 was examined in chief and the matter was posted for cross-examination, but before the completion of the cross-examination, relying upon the Judgment of the High court, the petitions were rejected. The procedure followed is not legally sustainable and therefore, the order of rejection of the petitions is liable to be set aside.

6. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgment in N.S.S.Narayana Sarma and others Vs. M/s.Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd., and others (AIR 2002 SC 251). They referred to the following passage in Paragraph 16:

"The words 'all questions arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97' would envelop only such questions as would legally arise for determination between those parties. In other words, the Court is not obliged to determine a question merely because of the resister raised it. The questions which the executing Court is obliged to determine under Rule 101, must possess two adjuncts. First is that such questio