Controller has all powers of a Civil Court.

ORDER :- The 'landlord' within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is the petitioner in this revision filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent herein is the 'tenant' within the meaning of the Act. The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent under the provisions of the Act in HRC No. 1909 of 1980 on the file of the Eleventh Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, hereinafter referred to as the Controller. Eviction was ordered on 10-11-1980. The respondent preferred HRA No. 222 of 1981, to the concerned appellate authority and the said appeal was dismissed for default on 28-9-1981. While the appeal was pending, there was an order of stay in M.P. No. 107 of 1981. The respondent preferred M. P. No. 631 of 1981 to set aside the order of dismissal for default on 16-10-1981. The provision quoted in the application was Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules. Obviously, this is a mistake for Rule 16 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1974, hereinafter referred to as the rules. The appellate authority ordered notice to the petitioner herein on 6-11-1981. It is admitted that notice was served on the counsel for the petitioner on 21-11-1981 yet, the petitioner sought execution of the order of eviction in HRC No.1909 of 1980 by filing E.P.No.1219 of 1981 before the Controller and obtained an order of delivery on 21-11-1981. The petitioner was obliged to seek an order, for breaking open and police protection, obviously since he could not obtain possession by peaceful process. On 27-11-1981 the Controller directed delivery of possession by breaking open the premises with police aid and on 28-11-1981, possession was taken by the petitioner. On 30-11-1981 the respondent filed M.P. No.779 of 1981 before the Controller for redelivery quoting the provisions of Ss.144 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code. The Controller directed redelivery on 22-12-1981, and this revision is directed against the order of the Controller.

2. Mr. Inamdar Abdus Salam, learned counsel for the petitioner, would put forth two contentions, coveting interference by this court with the orders passed by the Controller. One is that the Controller misconstrued Rule 16 of the Rules when he proceeded on the basis that by the filing of the application M.P. No.631 of 1981, the execution proceedings in HRC No.1909 of 1980 must be deemed to have been stayed. Rule 16 of the Rules delineates the procedure for the disposal of appeals by the appellate authority under S.23 of the Act. For the purpose of this revision we are only concerned with the implications of the third proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 16 of the Rules. Sub-rule (3) deals with the process to set aside an ex parte order passed against a 'tenant' or a 'landlord' or an order of dismissal for default. The third proviso to the said sub-rule reads as follows -

"Provided also that where an application for setting aside an ex parte order or an order of dismissal for default has been received under this sub-rule for the first time, all execution proceedings, in pursuance of the ex parte order or the order of dismissal for default shall be stayed until the disposal of the application."

There is no dispute that the application M.P. No. 631 of 1981 filed for setting aside the order of dismissal for default was one preferred for the first time. A bare reading of the proviso leaves no room for doubt that where such an application has been received by the appellate authority under sub-rule(3), all execution proceedings in pursuance of the order of dismissal for default shall be stayed until the disposal of the application. What the learned counsel for the petitioner states is that the proceedings in execution in H.R.C. No. 1909 of 1981 cannot be stated to be execution proceedings in pursuance of the order of dismissal for default, so a