The court emphasized the finality of court proceedings, the abuse of process of law, and the authority of court orders.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes dated 28.11.2012 in M.P.No.545 of 2012 in M.P.No.384 of 2012 in RCA No.419 of 2012.

2. If the petitioner's interpretation has to be accepted, there will be a chaos and there will be violation of hierarchy of courts. If any of the courts in the hierarchy has passed wrong or erroneous order, it is only for the higher forum to decide about the plea as to whether the lower forum/court committed error or illegality while passing the order. On the contrary, in this case, an order which was passed by the Small Causes Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court and later by this Court. This said order very curiously is challenged before the Small Causes Court in the guise of Section 47 application contending that this court erred in confirming the order passed by the courts below. By filing this petition, the petitioner has to put the lowest forum namely, the Small Causes Court in an embarrassing position to decide about the validity of the order passed by the highest court of the state which is never contemplated under the law.

3. The contention regarding non-consideration or passing of erroneous order by this court has to be decided only by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not by filing of Section 47 petition, after loosing before the High Court, which will make the people loose faith in the very system itself and the people who approach the court with fond hope of getting justice will ultimately be frustrated and would drive them to take extra constitutional methods or illegal methods to get instant justice in the hands of thugs and similar groups which are all very active nowadays which this court cannot loose sight of it. If this court is going to sustain the contention being made by the petitioner, it will only make the litigation prolonged for ever and blame is put on the courts for delay. On the contrary, it is only the parties who are dragging on the proceedings and ultimately the victims is the party who comes to the court and finally the image is of the justice delivery system is deserted. Therefore, serious view is required to be taken. This case is only a tip of iceberg. Even after confirmation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the parties very casually either file another suit or file Section 47 petition or set up some third parties to see that the decree is not executed and thereby prevent the decree-holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree which the said party obtained after many years of waiting in the court in queue.

4. The respondent who is the landlady approached the rent controller in RCOP No.1635 of 2007 against the petitioner herein, the tenant for eviction on the ground of wilful default and ceasing to occupy under Section 10 (2) (i) and 10(2) (vi) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1990 as amended by Act 23 of 1973and Act 1 of 1980. The monthly rent payable by the petitioner in respect of a flat at premise No.23, Plot No.104/A2, North Avenue, First Floor, Srinagar Colony, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015 is Rs.7500/- from 18.04.2006 onwards.

5. The period of default alleged is from October 2006 to upto date. A cheque dated 01.06.2007 which was given towards arrears of rent by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.50,000/- was also returned for the reason "insufficient funds". Moreover, it was also mentioned in Para 6 of the eviction petition that the petition premises namely the flat was kept under lock and key by the petitioner as the petitioner ceased to occupy the premises. In the said RCOP, notice was ordered to the petitioner. After service of summons, the matter was called on 31.01.2007. Since the petitioner either appeared in person or through counsel, he was called absent and set exparte giving one month time to the petitioner to vacate the premises. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.P.No.545 of 2007 to set aside the exparte decree dated 31.10.2007. Even that said petition was