The main legal point established is that an adjudication of a Third party claim under Order 21, Rule 97 is appealable, and the Appeal should not be dismissed solely on the ground of maintainability under Section 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

1. The First Respondent has entered appearance through Counsel. The Second Respondent remained absent in the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Hence, dispensing with the service of notice on the Second Respondent, this Civil Revision Petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself, since purely on legal issue the Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of.

2. The submissions made by Mr. Venkatachalapathy, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and by Mr. M. Balasubramanian, learned Counsel for the First Respondent are heard. The materials produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

3. The First Respondent claiming to be the Landlord, under whom the Second Respondent was a Tenant, filed R.C.O.P.No.1192 of 2005 which was disposed of by the Rent Controller/XII Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai allowing the R.C.O.P. and directing eviction of the Second Respondent herein. As against the said Order of Eviction dated 5.10.2005, the Second Respondent herein preferred an Appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.324 of 2006. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal by judgment dated 18.2.2010 confirming the Order of Eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Thereafter, the First Respondent filed E.P.No.71 of 2011 for execution of the Eviction Order. Meanwhile, the Petitioner came to be found occupying the Petition premises and he resisted the execution. Besides offering such resistance, the Revision Petitioner filed a Petition under Order 21, Rules 97 & 99, C.P.C. claiming tenancy right in respect of the Petition premises on the basis of a tenancy arrangement allegedly made by the wife of the First Respondent. The learned Rent Controller (on Execution side), after hearing, dismissed the claim made by the Revision Petitioner and directed execution of the Eviction Order by removing the obstruction caused by the Revision Petitioner. As against the said order passed on the Execution side dated 28.11.2012 in E.A.No.40 of 2011 in E.P.No.21 of 2011 in R.C.O.P.No.1192 of 2005, the Revision Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Rent Control Appellate Authority in R.C.A.No.721 of 2013. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, after hearing, dismissed the said Appeal by a Judgment and Decree dated 6.11.2013, holding that such an Appeal was incompetent because of the bar provided under Section 18(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. As against the said decretal Order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissing R.C.A.No.721 of 2012 on the ground of maintainability, the present Revision has been filed.

4. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the Order Appealed against could not be construed to be an Order contemplated under sub-clause (2) of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act since the same came to be passed in an adjudication regarding the claim of the obstructor under Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C. de hors Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority committed an error in dismissing the Appeal without going into the merits of the Appeal, simply holding that the Appeal is barred by sub-clause (2) of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In support of his contention that such an Appeal does not come under the mischief of sub-clause (2) of Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 the learned Senior Counsel has relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Fathima Automobiles v. P.K.P. Nair and another, AIR 1985 Mad. 318 and a judgment of a learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in Balraj Singh v. Ajit Singh, AIR 2005 Raj. 120. Of course in the second of the judgment cited by the learned Single Judge, the case was dealt with by a Civil Court and not