Revision against the order of Rent Controller allowed.

1. The challenge in this revision is to the order of the execution Court dated 25.9.2001 in M.P.No.250 of 2001 in E.P.No.539 of 2000 in R.C.O.P.No.2037 of 1998, rejecting the petitioner’s application filed under Section 47 C.P.C. to dismiss E.P.No.539 of 2000, on the ground that the decree of eviction granted in R.C.O.P. was a nullity.

2. Twin questions arise for consideration in this revision, namely, as to whether this court lacks jurisdiction to deal with this revision and also as to the correctness of the order impugned in this revision.

3. As the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this revision has been raised, it has become incumbent upon me to deal with the said question in the first instance before going into the question about the correctness of the order impugned in this revision. On the preliminary issue raised at the instance of the respondent, the relevant provision that requires investigation is with regard to Section 18 of The Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 read along with Section 47, C.P.C.

4. To understand the controversy and scope of the issue raised, it is worthwhile to extract the above referred to Sections. Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) reads as under :

“Execution of Orders : (1) Every order made under Sections 10,14,15,16 and 17 and every order passed on appeal under Section 23 or on revision under Section 25 shall be executed by the Controller, as if such order is an order of a Civil Court and for this purpose, the Controller shall have all the powers of a Civil Court.

(2) An order passed in execution under sub-section (1) shall not be subject to any appeal or revision.”

Section 47, C.P.C. is to the following effect:

“Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree : (1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Omitted by Amendment Act, 1976.) Where a question arises as to whether any person is or is not the representative of a party, such question shall, for the purposes of this section, be determined by the Court. (Explanation I: For the purposes of this section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit.

Explanation II: (a) For the purposes of this section, a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed; and (b) all questions relating to the delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section.)”

5. The contention raised on behalf of the respondent is that when Sub-Section 2 of Section 18 of the Act places an embargo on any appeal or revision against an order passed under Sub-Section 1 of Section 18 and when the present order impugned in this revision came to be passed by the execution Court by virtue of the execution proceedings launched under Section 18 (1), though the present order came to be passed in an application filed under Section 47, C.P.C., in that execution proceedings, it is nonetheless an order passed in the proceedings launched under Section 18 (1) of the Act and, therefore, the Revision was not maintainable.

6. To deal with the vexed question raised, the brief facts are also required to be stated, which are as under :

The respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.2037 of 1998 for eviction on the ground of additional accommodation under Section 10 (3) (c) of the Act. The petitioner having remained ex parte in the said proceedings, an order of eviction came to be passed on 2.3.1999. Based on the said order of evictio