ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Sec.25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by an obstructor whose obstruction petition was dismissed and decree holder was allowed to take possession of the property.

2. First respondent herein filed eviction petition in R.C.O.P.1645 of 1995 on the file of 16th Court of Small Causes, Madras and obtained an order of eviction against second respondent herein Ravichandran. Only ground on which eviction was ordered was that tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent. Even though notice was served on Ravichandran, during trial, he did not contest and believing the evidence of landlord, order of eviction was passed.

3. Nearly one year after order of eviction, landlord filed E.P.No.310 of 1996 to get possession of property. When bailiff visited the property to deliver possession, revision petitioner herein filed obstruction petition alleging that he has entered into rental arrangement with decree holder from May 1996 onwards, and he has paid Rs.5,000 as advance apart from monthly rent of Rs.1,000. According to him, judgment-debtor already vacated the property and he is in independent possession of property and not liable to be dispossessed in execution of decree.

4. First respondent filed an application under O.21, Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure to remove the obstruction. Decree holder contended that there is no rental arrangement with the obstructor and he is claiming only under judgment-debtor. Executing Court took evidence and on the side of decree holder Exs. A1 to A4 were marked and on the side of Obstructor, Exs. B1 to B4 were marked. Both decree holder and Obstructor got themselves examined as P.W.1 and D.W.1, respectively.

5. After discussing entire evidence, Executing Court held that Obstructor has no right over the property and his claim that he is in independent possession of building is not true. It is further found that he is not tenant of decree holder as alleged by him nor he paid any rent or advance. Executing Court further held that even after eviction was ordered, Ravichandran continued in possession of the building and that is clear from Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the letter admittedly written by Ravichandran admitting that he is in default whereby he made part payment and requested further time to pay rent. On receipt of letter, decree holder replied on 10.3.1996 evidenced by Ex.A2 through his counsel informing about the decree, but at the same time agreed to provide some time to surrender vacant possession. Ex.A3 is postal acknowledgment receipt where Ravichandran had signed the same. Ex.A4 shows that landlord is in the habit of issuing receipts whenever amount is received from his tenants. In respect of adjoining building also receipt was issued by landlord and that was spoken by him as P.W.1 and evidenced by Ex.A4. Obstruction was directed to be removed and application of landlord was allowed and directed the bailiff to remove the obstruction by handing over possession to landlord.

6. Against the said order, obstructor filed R.C.A.No.280 of 1998. Appellate Authority also confirmed the finding of Executing Court and dismissed the appeal. It is against the concurrent judgment, this revision petition is filed by the Obstructor under Sec.25 of the Rent Control Act.

7. Since caveat was entered by respondents, I heard the revision petition itself at the stage of admission.

8. Learned counsel for respondents raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition. According to learned counsel, appeal before Appellate Authority itself is not maintainable and consequently revision also cannot be entertained. Learned counsel submitted that Executing Court under Rent Control Act is Civil Court for all purposes and any order passed in execution is to be challenged only as provided under Code of Civil Procedure. If it is a case of adjudication of rights in an obstruction petition, it will be deemed to be decree and consequently regula

Click Here to Read the rest of this document