K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order passed by the district Munsif, Ootacamund, allowing the application E.A. No. 8 of 1984, under Section 47, C.P.C.

2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision can be briefly stated as follows: The revision petitioner herein obtained a decree for recovery of the same (sic). The respondent herein, who is the defendant in the suit, filed the petition under Section 47 read with Section 151, C.P.C. contending that in the written statement filed by him in O.S. No. 203 of 1974 he has specifically pleaded that he is entitled to the benefits of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and that the remedy of the revision petitioner herein is to proceed against him for eviction before the Rent Controller. The said plea was not accepted by trial court as well as the District Court. However, in A.S. No. 1153 of 1978, this Court observed that the executability of the decree passed in the matter will have to be considered by the executing Court. It is stated that the construction of the building in question was completed by 1.4.197l and has the same was assessed to property tax with effect from t