Revision against order of rejection filed by plaintiff allowed.

1. Heard Mr. Perumbulavil Radhakrishnan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Subramania Iyer for respondents.

2. This revision has been filed by the plaintiff against the order passed in R.E.P.No. 369/87 in O.S.No.1097/83 dismissing the said E.P. as not executable.

.3. The petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit O.S.1097/83 for declaration and for recovery of possession. The suit was laid on the ground that the petitioner has purchased the property and after the purchase has leased out the suit property to the 1st respondent/first defendant in O.S.No.1097/1983 and the first respondent is in possession as a tenant under the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.20. Before the suit, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondent for delivery of possession and to which a reply was sent which according to the petitioner is false.

4. The first respondent filed a written statement which was adopted by the 2nd respondent. It is contended that the claim of the petitioner that the suit property was leased out to the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.20 is false and the first respondent never entered into any agreement and that the property was leased out to the husband of the first defendant, who is the 2nd respondent in the suit and that the petitioner has leased out to the 2nd respondent only a vacant site who put up the superstructure at a cost of Rs.10,000. Since there is no cause of action against the respondent, the suit has to be rejected. The trial court framed necessary issues for trial. Issue No. 1 relates to title to the suit property of the plaintiff/petitioner herein. Issue No. 2 relates to the lease set up by the defendants/respondents and Issue No.4 relates to the relief for declaration and possession of the suit property as prayed for. Issues were also framed in regard to the defendants’ entitlement to the City Tenants Protection Act. The trial court on the basis of the evidence let in clearly held that the petitioner/plaintiff has leased out the house alone which was purchased by him under Ex.A.1 and that the lease was not in respect of a vacant site as claimed by the defendants. In conclusion the court below held that the petitioner has got title to the suit property and the lease set up by respondents/defendants regarding vacant site alone was not proved and that the defendants are not entitled to the benefits of the City Tenants’ Protection Act. On issue No.4 the court held that the plaintiff is entitled to the property and the defendants who have not paid the rent and denied the title of the plaintiff are bound to deliver possession to the plaintiff. In the result, the court below decreed the suit with costs.

5. It is not in dispute that there is no further appeal against this judgment and decree dated 22. 87 and that the finding of the Principal District Munsif, Salem that the petitioner herein is the owner of the house and that the same was leased out to the respondents and that the respondents have committed default in payment of rent and that the said judgment and decree has become final and conclusive.

.6. Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed E.P.No.369/87 before the District Munsif, Salem for recovery of possession on 9. 1987. The execution petition was registered by the respondent herein stating that since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondents, the decree obtained by the petitioner in O.S. No. 1097 of 1983 is not executable one, that since the respondent is a monthly tenant and that they are entitled to the provisions of the Rent Control Act. It is further submitted that the present execution petition for delivery of possession in pursuance to the decree is not maintainable in law and the execution of the decree passed in the suit is prohibited under section 10 of the Rent Control Act which prevails over the execution of the decree obtained by the petitioner in civil court and the decree obtained by the petitioner i