The inherent power of the court to order restitution or redelivery of property is not applicable to rent control proceedings.

1. These revisions arise out of a common order passed in M.P.Nos.683 of 1993 and 738 of 1993 in E.P. No. 368 of 1993 in R.C.O.P. No. 40 of 1993 dated 12. 1993.

2. M.P. No. 683 of 1993 is for setting aside the exparte order dated 9. 1993 in E.P. No. 368 of 1993 and M.P. No. 738 of 1993 is for a direction to the bailiff to effect redelivery of the demised property "as is where condition" to the petitioner. Learned XIII Judge, Small Cause Court by his order dated 12. 1993 rejected the M.P. No. 738 of 1983 and consequently on the same date rejected M.P. No. 368 of 1993 also. The above two petitions were filed by aggrieved tenant.

3. The short facts for understanding the scope of the revisions are as follows:

R.C.O.P. No. 40 of 1993 was filed by the landlord for eviction of the petitioner from a godown bearing door No. 7, Thambu Naick Street, Madras-79. The said godown forms part of a big building. Notices were sent to the said addresses. As the petitioner herein did not appear, an exparte eviction order was passed. Subsequently in E.P. No. 368 of 1993 the landlord has taken possession of the said godown. The delivery order in E.P. No. 368 of 1993 was also an exparte order. Thereafter, taking possession through court on 9. 1993 he has demolished the godown and reconstructed it. The demolition and reconstruction were as per the permission and permits obtained from the Corporation of Madras.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order for eviction and the consequent order for delivery were obtained by playing a fraud upon court. Therefore, the entire proceedings starting from the order of eviction and resulting in delivery of possession must be set aside. According to the learned counsel the petitioner was carrying on business at No. 149, Govindappa Naick Street, Madras. In other proceedings instituted by the respondent notices were served on the petitioner only to the said address. In R.C.O.P. No. 40 of 1993, even though addresses for service has been given as No. 149, Govindappa Naick Street, Madras, notices were sent to premises No. 7, Thambu Naick Street, Madras. In the petition for eviction, it is stated that the respondent was carrying on business at No. 149, Govindappa Naick Street, Madras-1. But it is not stated that it is the address for service on the respondent. But in para 3 also it is stated that the petitioner is a tenant occupying a shop carrying on business in the ground-floor of the premises No. 7, Thambu Naick Street, Madras. The notices to the building in question has been sent and publication also been made giving the said address. When the petitioner is having a godown in the said address, stored articles worth about Rs.5 lakhs for the business. It cannot be said that the petitioner is carrying on business at No. 149, Govindappa Naick Street alone and not at the premises No. 7, Thambu Naick Street, Madras-79. Further, it is unbelievable that the petitioner does not go to the godown at all daily or atleast twice or thrice a week. In the counter filed in R.C.O.P. No. 40 of 1993 the petitioner has stated that the premises has been used by this respondent. There is no statement in the counter that he is not visiting the godown daily. Even though it could be at the most that it was a clever act on the part of the respondent in not sending notice to No. 149, Govindappa Naick Street, Madras-1, it cannot be definitely said to be a fraud. When a person is a tenant in respect of a building and if notice is sent in eviction proceedings in the said address, it cannot be said to be a fraud. On the other hand, he is bound to send notice to the address. Merely because, he has chosen to send the notice in other proceedings to a different address that does not mean that he is bound to send notice in the petition for eviction from premises No. 7, Thambu Naick Street, he should send notice to No. 149, Govindappa Naick Street, Madras-1.

5. It is also possible for the petitioner to cont