1. Though the miscellaneous petition is listed for disposal, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Civil Revision Petition itself is taken up for disposal.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the proceedings in Contempt Petition No.464 of 2014 in M.P.No.23 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.2359 of 2013, pending on the file of X Small Causes Court, Chennai, mainly on the ground that the learned Rent Controller does not have jurisdiction to entertain and consequently to initiate Contempt proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. The revision petitioner herein is the landlord in R.C.O.P.No.59 of 2013 pending on the file of X Small Causes Court, Chennai and the respondents herein are the tenants. The said R.C.O.P. was filed by the tenants under Section 17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (as amended) seeking for restoration of basic amenity of water supply to the petition mentioned premises.

4. Pending the above R.C.O.P., the tenants filed an interim application in M.P.No.23 of 2014 under Section 17(3) of the said Act, seeking for a direction to the landlord to restore the water supply forthwith to the petition mentioned premises. The said interim application, after contest, was allowed on 25.2.2014. Alleging that the said interim direction was not complied with, the tenants filed Contempt Petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, praying for punishing the landlord for disobedience of the interim order, dated 25.2.2014. The learned Rent Controller entertained the Contempt Petition and issued notice to the landlord. On receipt of the notice in the said Contempt proceedings in Contempt Petition No.464 of 2014, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the landlord, challenging the same on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/landlord submitted that the learned Rent Controller is not a Court to initiate the Contempt proceedings and therefore, he lacks jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/tenants, though conceded to the question of law raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by saying that the Contempt proceedings may not lie before the learned Rent Controller, however submitted that the other remedy is always available to the respondents/tenants to execute the interim order, when the said order is not obeyed by the revision petitioner/landlord.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

8. The core issue that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether the Subordinate Courts, more particularly in this case, the learned Rent Controller, has jurisdiction to entertain the Contempt Petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

9. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/tenants conceded to the above issue in favour of the revision petitioner/landlord. Even then, this Court would like to go into such issue and give a finding, since the question of law pertaining to jurisdiction raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be answered simply based on the concession given by the other side, since it is well settled that parties cannot either confer or deny jurisdiction on a particular Court in respect of a particular matter, unless it is so stated under the statute.

10. Thus, to decide the issue on hand, let me first consider the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The said Act was enacted to define and limit the powers of certain Courts in punishing Contempts of Courts and to regulate their procedure in relation thereto. A perusal of the statement of objects and reasons for enacting the said law would show that the then existing law relating to Contempt of Courts was somewhat uncertai