Civil Court has to execute order of eviction as if it were a decree passed by that Court.

The above two revisions arise out of two applications filed by the respondentherein, one E. A No.1126 of 1968 for redelivery of possession of a house fromwhich the respondent was evicted by the Court and the other E. A. No. 197 of1969 for recovery of damages or mesne profits. The circumstances under which theabove two revisions came to be filed by the petitioner are these:

Therespondent was a tenant under the petitioner herein. The petitioner filed aneviction petition in H.R.C. No. 1894 of 1967 on the ground of wilful default bythe respondent in payment of the rents. There was an ex parte order ofeviction on 7th August, 1967. The respondent filed I.A No. 880 of 1967 forsetting aside the said ex parte order. The Retnt Controller passed aconditional order setting aside the ex parte order of eviction but as theconditions were not complied with, the said application was dismissed on 9thNovember, 1967. Thereafter, in execution of the ex parte order ofeviction, the petitioner got delivery of the property through the City CivilCourt at Madras on 14th November, 1967 in E.P. No. 1001 of 1967. The respondentfiled an appeal, H.R.A., No. 358 of 1967 against the conditions imposed in LA.No. 880 of 1967 by the Rent Controller for setting aside the eviction order andthe said appeal was allowed on 16th November, 1968. As a result of the appel1ateorder, the ex parte order of eviction stood set aside. The respondentthere after filed E. A. No. 5 I of 1968 in the executing Court for redelivery ofpossession by way of restitution. But in the meanwhile, the petitioner filedC.R.P. No. 298 of 1968­in this Court against the order in H.R.A.No. 358 of 1967and got interim stay, as a. result of which E.A. No. 51 of 1968 was closed bythe executing Court. Ultimately C.R.P. No. 298 of 1968 was dismissed on 15thMarch, 1968 with a directionto dispose of the eviction petition within twomonths and not to disturb possession of the new tenants inducted by thepetitioner in the meanwhile tm the disposal of the eviction: petition. H.R.C.No. 1894 of 1967 Was actually disposed of on merits on 30th Decem­ber, 1968directing the parties to establish their right in a civil suit as it was foundthat there was a primafacie dispute between the parties as regards the title toth(: properties: The petitioner filed an appeal against that order in H.R.A No.264 of 1968, but. without success. He also filed C.R.P.No. 762 of 1968 in thisCourt against the appellate order in H.R.A. No. 264 of 1968 but the same wasalso dismissed on 4th June, 1969. He thereafter filed O.S. No. 6369 of 1968 toestablish his title to the property in pursuance to the order in H.R.C.No. 1894of 1967 and obtained an interim injunction in I.A.No. 18525 of 1969 which waslater on 19th August, 1969. It is under these circumstances the respondent filedE.A.No. 1126 of 1968 for redeli­very, and RA.No. 197 of 1969 for damages ormesne profits, invoking the provisions. of sections 144 and 151 of the Code ofCivil Procedure. The lower Court by its common order not only directedredelivery of possession but also ordered payment of mesne profits at the rateof Rs. 100 per month from 30th October, 1968 till the date of redelivery.C.R.P.No. 92 of 1970 is against the order in the first applica­tion andC.R.P.No. 93 of 1970 is against the order in the second application.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner inboth the cases contended that an application for redelivery either under section144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. or under the inherent powers of the Court cannot be maintained, and that the mesne profits awarded by the lower Court had no basis at all.

As regards the first contention relating to the maintainability of the application for redelivery, the learned Counsel referred to the decision in C.R.P. No. 967 of 1968 where Ramaprasada Rao, J., had held that in the absence of an express provision or a provision by necessary intendment which would enable a civil Court to direct redelivery, the Court acting under secti