ORDER :- The landlord is the petitioner. He filed an application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the respondent who is unfortunately not represented before me. The petitioner obtained an ex parte order of eviction and pursuant thereto took possession of the property from the respondent. The respondent, however, filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and was successful. Basing on the observations in Raso Moopanar v. Ramamurthy Iyer, 1967-1 Mad LJ 287, the respondent sought re-delivery of the property from the petitioner which the court below directed. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

2. The contention of Mr Venkataraman, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ratio in 1967-1 Mad LJ 287 is no longer good law, as it has been reversed in Mayilsami Gounder v. Rammoorthi Chettiar, CRP No. 439 of 1967 (Mad), by a Division Bench of this court to which the learned Chief Justice is a party.

3. The point involved in this case is whether, in the absence of an express statutory provision which would enable court to direct restitution, it could do so ex debito justitiae. As a matte