No valid objection can be taken against eviction order passed against tenant.

(PRAYER: Revision filed against the order dated 12.10.2006 and made in RCA No.113/2006 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court [Appellate Authority], Chennai, confirming the Order in M.P.No.187/2005 in E.P.No.160/1998 dated 1.2.2006, on the file of XV Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai (Rent Controller).)

This revision arises out of the Order of removal of the Petitioner/obstructor in M.P.No.187/2005 in E.P.No.160/1998 in RCOP No.2244/1992 confirmed by the Appellate Authority in RCA No.113/2006, on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court [Appellate Authority], Chennai.

2. Facts which led to the revision are as follows:-

2.1. The demised premises is a non-residential premises bearing No.139, Murugan Avenue Road, Madras-10. The late first Respondent has obtained an Order of eviction in RCOP No.2244/1992 on 24.08.1994 against the fifth Respondent. The fifth Respondent has not preferred any appeal. The learned Counsel filed E.P.No.160/1998 to execute the Order of eviction. In the execution proceedings, the fifth Respondent filed M.P.No.125/1999 under Section 47 CPC and the same was dismissed. Against the dismissal of that Petition, the fifth Respondent/Tenant has filed CRP No.1461/2003 and the same was dismissed on 16.08.2004, awarding exemplary cost of Rs.2,000/-.

2.2. After the disposal of the said CRP, the Bailiff was again taken for executing warrant on 17.03.2005. At that time, the Petitioner, who is none other than the brother of the fifth Respondent, has obstructed delivery of possession and hence, the landlords filed Petition under Or.21 R.97 CPC for removal of obstruction. The Revision Petitioner resisted that application contending that only the partnership firm "M/s.Power and Protectors" is the Tenant and not Surendraraj (the fifth Respondent).

2.3. Observing that mentioning of the name M/s.Power & Protector in the lease deed would not confer status of Tenant upon the Firm, the Rent Controller negatived the contention of the obstructor. Finding that the Tenant and the obstructors are own brothers and it is improbable that the Petitioner/obstructor would not have known about the eviction Order, the learned Rent Controller ordered removal of obstruction. The same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The concurrent Order of removal of obstruction is challenged in this Revision Petition.

3. Placing reliance upon various decisions, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner submitted that the Courts below have not properly considered the application for removal of obstruction. The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner interalia raised the following contentions :-

" Right from the inception, only the firm "M/s.Power & Protector" was the Tenant and the Lease Deed would also show that the Firm is the Tenant. Rent has been paid only from the accounts of the partnership firm;

" Decree Holder has the knowledge that the partnership firm is carrying on business and while so, erroneously obtained eviction Order against Surendraraj.

" When the firm was the Tenant and not the individual, Petition filed against the individual is not maintainable [2002 (3) SCC 626 Harshavardhan Chokkani Vs. Bhupendra N.Patel and others].

4. Countering the arguments, the learned Counsel for the Respondents/landlords submitted that only the fifth Respondent was the Tenant and the fifth Respondent had been obstructing delivery of possession in various stages. It was further submitted that the Petitioner has been set up only at the instance of the fifth Respondent to further delay delivery of possession.

5. The Petitioner is none other than the brother of the Tenant - the fifth Respondent – Surendraraj. There is no dispute that Notice was issued to Surendraraj and Order of eviction was passed against the fifth Respondent. When the Petitioner is the brother of the fifth Respondent, it is quite unbelievable that the Petitioner was not aware of the eviction Order.

6. It is pertinent to note that the fifth Respondent had been h