Ratios:
a. Rent controller is not a forum for collection of arrears of rent.
b. Direction by Rent Controller to the tenant to pay arrears of rent is a nullity.
c. Rent Controller is a persona designate and his powers are circumscribed by T.N. Act 18 of 1960.
d. An order which is a nullity is non-executable and can be challenged in execution proceeding.

This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of arrest made in E.P.No.231 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2001 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Theni.

2. The respondent herein filed R.C.O.P.No.13 of 2001 before the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Periyakulam, under Sections.10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, contending that the petitioner herein committed wilful default in payment of rent to the building viz., two rooms bearing Door No.641 and 656, for which rent was agreed to be paid at the rate of Rs.150/-and Rs.500/- per month respectively, and also on the ground that the petitioner had sub-let a portion of the stalls to some third parties.

3. The revision petitioner, though resisted the said eviction petition, the Rent Controller, by order dated 19. 2003, ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default. Insofar as the ground of sub-letting is concerned, the eviction petition was rejected. The revision petitioner vacated the premises and handed over vacant possession of the rental premises to the respondent, pursuant to the order passed in E.P.No.35 of 2004 and delivery of possession was recorded on 3. 2005 through the Court Amin.

4. In the eviction petition, in addition to the prayer for eviction on the above two grounds, the respondent herein sought for a direction to the petitioner herein to pay all the arrears of rent to the respondent herein. The eviction petition having been allowed with a direction to pay the rental arrears within three months, the respondent herein filed E.P.No.231 of 2006 and prayed for execution of the decree insofar as the noncompliance of the order directing payment of arrears of rent.

5. The said execution petition was resisted by the petitioner/tenant by filing counter affidavit contending that the direction issued to pay the arrears of rent by the Rent Control Court is without jurisdiction and no amount was quantified and therefore the respondent cannot file execution petition for realisation of the amount of Rs.34,750/-. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the execution petition filed as such is not maintainable.

6. The learned Rent Controller rejected the contention raised in the counter affidavit and ordered arrest of the petitioner/tenant by 7. 2007 under Order XXI Rule 37 CPC. The said order is challenged in this revision petition on the ground that the Rent Control Court, constituted under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, has no jurisdiction to give direction to pay the arrears of rent and the prayer made by the respondent in the eviction petition for a direction to pay the arrears of rent while ordering eviction for wilful default in payment of rent is unsustainable.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the Rent Control Court has no jurisdiction to order payment of arrears of rent and hence the decree passed for paying the arrears of rent while ordering eviction is a nullity and the said plea was raised in the execution proceedings before the Rent Controller, which was not properly considered and therefore this revision petition is filed on the plea that nullity of the decree, which is incapable of execution, can be challenged in any proceeding. According to the learned counsel, the same is challenged in this revision petition under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel also submitted that as per the explanation to Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1955, the claim being realisation of money, the respondent has to file civil suit by paying Court fee and shall obtain a decree and in this case, no money suit is filed before the Civil Court for recovery of money/rental arrears. Hence the learned counsel contended that the Rent Controller has no jurisdicti