1. The question involved in this Civil Revision is as to whether this Court, in exercise of its power under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, can order for striking of the proceedings pending before the Courts, which are subordinates to it, when fraud was committed by a party to such proceedings to deceive the Court and obtain orders in his favour to dispossess the person who was in lawful possession of a property.

2. The striking facts, which are relevant and germane for disposal of this Civil Revision Petition is that the respondent herein has filed R.C.O.P. No. 1881 of 2003 before the learned IX Judge, Small Causes Court at Chennai under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act against the revision petitioner herein for eviction of the respondent herein on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. In this Original Petition, an exparte order was passed on 10.02.2004 against the revision petitioner herein. On coming to know about the said order, the respondent herein filed M.P. No. 612 of 2004 in RCOP No. 1881 of 2003 for condonation of delay of 125 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte order dated 10.02.2004. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing both sides, condoned the delay and allowed M.P. No. 612 of 2004 on 06.10.2004. Subsequently, the petition filed by the respondent for setting aside the exparte order was also allowed on 14.10.2004. Therefore, the Rent Control Original Petition was taken up for final disposal. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing both sides, dismissed the RCOP No. 1881 of 2003 on 28.10.2004 on the ground that the revision petitioner failed to prove his title to the petition mentioned property and that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties to the Original Petition. In the order dated 28.10.2004, the learned Rent Controller also observed that the respondent herein has given a written complaint to the Police against the revision petitioner herein complaining that the revision petitioner is compelling and coercing him to sell the petition mentioned property. The learned Rent Controller further observed that the respondent herein has not produced any document to prove that he is the owner of the Petition Mentioned Property. As against the Order dated 28.10.2004 passed in RCOP No. 1881 of 2003, the revision petitioner has not preferred any appeal. Thus the Rent Control Original Proceedings initiated by the respondent herein has reached a finality.

3. While so, after about 9 years from the date of dismissal of the Rent Control Original Petition on 28.10.2004, the respondent herein has filed E.P. No. 250 of 2013 on 06.07.2013 to execute the exparte decree dated 10.02.2004, which was subsequently set aside and the Rent Control Original Petition itself was dismissed on 28.10.2004. In this Execution Petition, the respondent herein has stated that an exparte decree was passed in RCOP No. 1881 of 2003 against which no appeal has been filed. In the Execution Petition, notice was taken to the revision petitioner herein through Court as well as privately. The notice sent through the Court was returned as served and an Affidavit of Service was filed to show that the private notice sent to the revision petitioner was received by him. Based on the alleged service of notice, the learned Rent Controller, by order dated 19.07.2013, ordered for delivery and batta was ordered to be paid on 30.07.2013. Thereafter, at the instance of the respondent herein, a petition for advance hearing was filed and the Execution Petition was taken up for hearing on 02.08.2013. On 02.08.2013, the respondent filed Petitions for Police Aid and Break Open and they were also allowed and fresh delivery was ordered returnable by 07.08.2013. On the same day, possession was taken by the respondent herein and after taking possession, the warrant was returned with an endorsement "possession taken". On the same day i.e., on 07.08.2013, the E