S. Vimala, J.

1. A defaulting tenant, who was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 837/- towards arrears of rent on or before 14.10.1977, having committed a default again, and having suffered an order of eviction on 25.01.1978, whether can be allowed to prolong the case without vacating the premises (including the legal representatives also) till 2016, i.e. nearly for 40 years? Is it not the right time to revamp the judicial system, to reform the procedure and redraft the related laws, is the critical issue that would arise in the mind of the Court as well as the litigants.

1.1.When getting delivery of possession from the tenant is more onerous, than the delivery of a child from a mother and when the execution of the decree for the possession is achieved by the landlord; When such delivery recorded is branded as a paper delivery and not an actual delivery; when the tenant is guilty of recurring infringement of the order of the Court; when the decree holder do not claim any right independent of the right of his vendor/earlier decree holder; and when the subsequent purchaser has acquired the right to continue the execution proceedings, what is the right of the subsequent landlord whether to file a suit for possession or to continue the execution proceedings of the erstwhile landlord is the issue arising for consideration in this case.

This is a case where the tenant has raised very curious contentions and offered strange suggestion to the landlord/subsequent purchaser, with a view to reap the benefit of procrastination of the proceedings.

2. The contention of the tenant is that when delivery has already been ordered on 02.03.1981 in E.P. No. 1077 of 1980, the second execution petition filed by the subsequent purchaser in E.P. No. 162 of 1989 is not maintainable.

2.1. Yet another contention of the tenant is that the Court after ordering delivery becomes functus officio and therefore, the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the second execution petition.

3. This contention has been raised forgetting that if this contention is accepted, after ordering delivery in E.P. No. 162 of 1989 by 26.02.1990, how the Court is not functus officio so far as M.P. No. 203 of 1990 (which is filed by the tenant) is concerned, remain unanswered by the tenant.

4. The tenant has offered clear cut suggestion to the landlord/subsequent purchaser as to what the subsequent purchaser should do and what he should not do, through objections filed by the tenant. It is the desire of the tenant that the landlord/subsequent purchaser should not file the Execution Petition and that he should file only a suit for possession. What are the intentions behind this contention? Why the tenant, who is placed in a less privileged premises than the landlord, wants not the termination of the proceedings, but, continuation of the proceedings, by asking the landlord to file a fresh suit instead of filing an Execution Petition? What are the intentions behind this suggestion? Is the litigation so profitable to the tenant than the landlord? In other words, whether this desire of the tenant is legally tenable or not, is the issue.

5. The facts leading to the tenant filing CRP:

One C.S. Masilamani, (hereinafter he is referred to as erstwhile landlord/owner) as the owner/landlord of the suit property, filed R.C.O.P. No. 136 of 1975 seeking eviction of the tenant (Revision Petitioner) from the suit premises. Eviction was ordered on 25.01.1978. On the basis of the eviction order, the erstwhile landlord filed the petition for execution in E.P. No. 1077 of 1980 and got an order of delivery.

5.1. On the ground that there was a trespass subsequent to delivery, a criminal prosecution was launched in C.C. No. 2273 of 1981 by the erstwhile landlord. The complaint was under Sections 448 and 451 of Indian Penal Code. That complaint was dismissed on 08.02.1983.

5.2. Later, a Writ of M