Decree-holder is not bound to give address of parties.

1. The respondent has filed in R.C.O.P.No.2802 of 1996 on the file of the Small Causes Court, Chennai for evicting the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller in his order dated 24. 1.2000 allowed the petition for eviction and granted two months time to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises. After expiry of the period of two months, the respondent has filed the Execution Petition on 23. 2000. Since the respondent has not produced the certified copy of the decretal order, the office returned the papers and ultimately on representation by the counsel in open Court, the Court on 4. 2000 directed the office to number the same. On 4. 2000 notice was ordered and on 24. 2000, the Execution Petition was ordered and possession has been taken. At this stage, the petitioner has filed the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the Execution Petition cannot be sustained, without enclosing the decree copy, and that without even proper notice, the execution has been effected.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petition has submitted that the petitioner is having a right of appeal against the order of the learned Rent Control and he has applied for certified copy of the order an decree. Without even furnishing the certified copy of the order and decree, the executing Court should not have allowed the respondent/landlord to proceed with the execution, that too without furnishing the copy of the decree which is required under law. He has relied on the endorsement made by the office while returning the papers asking the petitioner to produce the copy of the decree. On that basis, the learned counsel has relied on Order 21, Rule 11 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to submit that when the Court requires the applicant to produce the certified copy of the decree, it should not have proceeded further without even obtaining the same from the landlord. In this case, no doubt, the office has returned the papers and asked the landlord to produce the certified copy of the decree. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/landlord has made an endorsement to the effect that "decree is not necessary for filing of Execution Petition as per Order 21, Rule 11 (2) of the Code, and also in view of the decision in W.B. Essential Commodities Supply Corporation v. Swadesh Agro arming and Storage Pvt., Ltd. and another, 1999 (8) SCC 315, In case of Doubt post before Court. On the basis of this endorsement the case was posted before the Court and in the open court after hearing the learned counsel for the landlord, the learned Judge accepted the submissions and directed the office to number it without decree copy, So, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the Court has directed the land-lord to file the Execution Petition with the decree copy, the Court should have proceeded with the Execution Petition without furnishing such copy cannot be sustained.

3. Now, the question is whether such a decree copy is necessary at all to proceed with the Execution Petition.

4. TheCode compels to produce the certified copy of the decree along with the Execution Application, only if the Court to which the application is made asked the applicant to produce the same; other-wise it is not a necessary document. Under Order 21, Rule 11 (3) it is stated so, and so it is extracted as follows:-

"The Court to which an application is made under sub-rule (2) may require the applicant to produce a certified copy of the decree".

5. In this case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the office has asked the petitioner to produce the certified copy of the decree it amounts to an order from the Court to produce the same and so the respondent-decree holder has to comply with the requirement under Order 21, Rule 11 (3) of the Code strictly. -In this case, though the office has originally asked the decree-holder to produce the certified copy of the decree, the learned c