O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the written endorsement of the learned District Munsif, Vandavasi, dated 04.08.2022 made in unnumbered E.P.No.Nil of 2022 in R.C.O.P.No.1 of

2010.

2. The revision petitioner is the decree holder and the execution petition was filed for executing the decree. The learned Executing Judge has returned the petition with the following endorsement;

“jpUg;gg;gLfpwJ juP ;g;ghizahdJ kD brhj;Jfis kDjhuUf;F RthjPdk; bfhLff; ntz;Lk; vd Fwpg;gpl;L tiuag;gltpyi; y/ Vbddpy; R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010 kDtpy; Vw;gl;l cj;junt kD brhj;Jfis kDjhuUf;F RthjPdk; bfhLff; ntz;Lk; vd gpwg;gpf;fg;glhky; mkk; D KGtJkhf mDkjpf;fgg; l;ljhf kl;Lnk gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ vdnt ,j;jifa epiyapy; juP ;g;ghizahdJ Fwpg;ghf brhj;J RthjPdk; Fwpj;J cj;jut[ VJkpd;wp ,Ug;gjhy; mjid epiwntw;wk; braa; ,ayhJ/ Fiwfis eptu;j;jp bra;jpl rl;lg;goahd eltofi; ffis vLff; tk[ ;/”

3. In the above endorsement, it is stated that the decree produced before the Court in respect of R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010 “that the main petition is allowed” and there is no specific words to hand over possession of the property to the petitioner. By stating so the Court refused to take the petition on file. Aggrieved over that, the decree holder / landlord has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. The petitioner as landlord has filed R.C.O.P.No.1 of

2010 against the respondent / tenant for eviction on the ground of wilful default. During the pendency of the said petition, the petitioner has filed R.I.A.No.8 of 2017 under Section 11(2) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, directing the respondent to pay the arrears of rent on or before a prescribed day and on his failure to comply the above direction to stop the further proceedings and order eviction. Accordingly, a conditional order was passed stating that the respondent should pay the arrears of rent on or before 15.06.2021. Since the respondent did not pay the arrears of rent in complying the direction, a final order was passed in the Interlocutory Application on 19.04.2021 by stopping all further proceedings in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010 for directing the tenant to hand over the possession to the landlord and thereby allowing the petition.

5. In view of the order passed in R.I.A.No.8 of 2017 under Section 11(4) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, the learned Rent Controller has allowed R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010 on 05.04.2022. Unfortunately a cryptic decree was drafted in both R.I.A.No.8 of 2017 and R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010. The words of the Court in the decree passed in R.I.A.No.8 of 2017 is as under:-

“1.That this Petition be and the same is hereby allowed.

2.That there shall be no order as to cost.”

6. The decree passed in R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010 the words employed by the Court is as under:- “1.That the main petition is allowed.

2.That no order as to costs.”

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that even though the above decreetal orders does not specifically say that the tenant has to vacate the possession of the landlord and both the orders passed in R.I.A.No.8 of 2017 and R.C.O.P.No.1 of 2010 are only to that effect. If the decreetal orders are not construed the manner in which the prayer is sought and the reasons for which the petitions are allowed, then the orders which were passed in favour of the decree holder themselves will be of no use. It is further submitted that even if the words of the decree are short in conveying the entire meaning, the executing court has got a duty to construct the decree by taking into consideration of all other documents and the object of the proceedings. In support of the above contentions, he cited the following decisions:-

“[i] Bhavan Vaja and others vs. Solanki Hanuji Khodaji Mansang and others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 40;

[ii] Meenakshi Sundaram vs. Seemaichamy and others reported in Manu/TN/2647/2015;

[iii] Purushothaman vs. Lakshmi Ammal reported in Manu/TN/4875/2020.”

8. There is no quarrel on the point that