Madras High Court
V.Balakrishnan vs R.Sai Kumari on 12 June, 2012
Author: V.Periya Karuppiah
Bench: V.Periya Karuppiah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.06.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH C.R.P.(NPD).No.2652 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 V.Balakrishnan .. Petitioner -Vs- R.Sai kumari .. Respondent Petition filed under section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 against the Judgment and decree dated 22.07.2010 made in RCA.No.590 of 2009 on the file of the VIII Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the order and decreetal order dated 03.12.2009 made in E.A.No.135 of 2009 in E.P.No.225 of 2009 in RCOP.No.788 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Small Causes Court, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Jothi for Mr.S.Jayakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Balasubramanian O R D E R
This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.590 of 2009 dated 22.07.2010 in confirming the order and decreetal order passed by the Executing Court made in E.A.No.135 of 2009 in E.P.No.225 of 2009 in RCOP.No.788 of 2006 dated 03.12.2009.
2. The Revision Petitioner was the respondent / third party before the Executing Court and the respondent was the petitioner / landlady.
3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner / landlady before the lower court would be as follows:-
The petitioner is the owner of the property and she filed E.P.No.225 of 2009 for delivery. At the time of execution of warrant, the bailiff could not execute the warrant since the respondent / obstructor resisted the bailiff from executing the warrant with respect to two rooms in the front side of the petition premises and the obstructor has come into possession of the two rooms at the instigation of G.V.Reddy, who is the tenant / respondent in RCOP and the respondent has no locus standi to obstruct the execution as he has no right in the petition property and is mere a stranger. Hence this petition to remove the obstruction caused by the respondent.
4. The brief facts of the case of the respondent / third party in the counter affidavit would be as follows:-
The petitioner has filed eviction petition against one G.V.Reddy, proprietor of Reddy Cars under the guise, the petitioner is trying to evict this respondent. As per the rent deed dated 20.10.2008, he is a separate tenant and is in possession of the petition premises. He has also obtained an order in I.A.No.13598 of 2009 in O.S.No.6671 of 2009 forbearing the petitioner from interfering with his possession and as such the respondent is entitled to continue the tenancy. The petitioner had appeared in the suit proceedings and then only, the respondent came to know about the present RCOP.No.788 of 2006 proceedings. As the respondent is a lawful tenant and has got an injunction order, he is entitled to stay in the petition mentioned portion. As the tenancy is questioned by the petitioner, the petitioner has to move a separate Rent Control Proceedings and he cannot evict this respondent in this E.P. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
5. The Executing Court had framed necessary points and had entered enquiry. Since no evidence of both oral and documentary were produced, it heard the arguments of both parties and had come to the conclusion of allowing the prayer of the petitioner / landlady. Aggrieved by the findings reached by the Executing Court in ordering the removal of obstructions, the respondent / third party before the Executing Court preferred an appeal in RCA.No.590 of 2009 before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority.
6. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority after hearing both sides had allowed the applications filed by both parties for receiving additional evidence and admitted Exs.P1 to P3 (marked mistakenly as appellant side exhibits) and Exs.R1 to R13 (marked mistakenly on the side of the respondent/third party) in the appeal. It had appraised the evidence and had come to the conclusion of confirming the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and thus, dismissed the appeal.
7. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.590 of 2009, the respondent / third party before the Executing Court preferred the present Revision.
8. For convenience sake, the rank of parties before the Executing Court is maintained.
9. Heard Mr. Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner / respondent / third party and Mr. S.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the respondent / petitioner / landlady.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent / third party would submit in his argument that both the courts below failed to consider that the respondent / third party was a lawful tenant under the petitioner and it was established through filing of a suit and in the interlocutory application the claim of the respondent / third party was accepted and temporary injunction was granted against the petitioner / landlady not to obstruct the possession of the respondent / tenant till the disposal of the said suit. He would also submit in his argument that the lease deed entered into between both parties on 20.10.2008 was lost and therefore, the complaint has been filed and the police had also issued a certificate of its non-traceability and the xerox copy of the said lease agreement was produced before the said court and it was accepted and a contested order has been passed by the said Court in I.A.No.13598 of 2009 and therefore, the petitioner / landlady cannot obstruct the possession of the respondent / third party until it is decided by the learned I Assistant City Civil Court in O.S.No.6671 of 2009. He would also submit in his argument that the courts below did not consider the order of the Civil Court passed after contest in I.A.No.13598 of 2009, which would bind upon the parties. He would also submit that the findings reached by both the courts below that the respondent / third party did not produce any tenancy agreement to show his status as tenant was not considered, despite the respondent / third party had produced a number of documents before the appellate court as additional evidence. He would also submit in his argument that the learned Rent Controller did not give an opportunity to adduce oral evidence and also to examine the parties to prove the case of the respondent / third party. He would also submit that the xerox copy of the rental agreement is the secondary evidence admissible in evidence in accordance with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same was not admitted by the learned Rent Controller. He would also submit that the petitioner / landlady was not issuing any receipt for the payment of the rents paid to her and the same was the habit of the landlady as admitted in the Rent Control Proceedings. He would also submit that once a suit has been filed in between parties and an interim order has been passed against the petitioner / landlady not to disturb the possession of the respondent / third party, and therefore, the Execution Proceedings in respect of the said property cannot be proceeded against some other person stating that he was the tenant in order to evict the respondent / third party, who was in actual possession and was protected by an order of Court. He would also submit that the petition filed by the petitioner / landlady under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC ought to have been considered under Order 21 Rule 98 CPC and Rule 101 CPC subject to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 104 CPC. He would also submit in his argument that the suit in O.S.No.6671 of 2009 was filed by the respondent / third party against the petitioner / landlady on 06.08.2009 and the orders passed by the learned Rent Controller as well as the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on 03.12.2009 and 22.07.2010 are not legally sustainable. He would further submit that they ought not to have considered the said petition under Order 21 Rule 101 and 104 CPC and they ought to have waited till the disposal of the suit. He would also submit in his argument that the respondent / third party being the tenant under a lease agreement should not have been evicted without resorting to the Rent Control Proceedings in an eviction order sought for against the persons, who had already vacated prior to the agreement of tenancy had by the respondent / third party. He would further submit that the respondent / third party was an independent tenant and the order of removal of obstruction passed by the learned Rent Controller under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC without adjudicating the real dispute is not sustainable. He would also submit that the removal of obstruction was stated to have in respect of two rooms only whereas the respondent / third party had entered tenancy agreement with the petitioner / landlady for the entire ground floor, which is described in the petition. He would also submit that after the enquiry conducted under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC an order of adjudication shall be made by the Court under Order 21 Rule 98 CPC as per sub-rule 2 of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. He would also submit that both the courts below did not follow the said principle and procedure and on that score itself, this court has to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. He would also cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1997 (3) SCC 694 (Brahmdeo Chaudhary ..vs.. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another) in support of his argument that an enquiry should have been conducted detailedly, since no separate suit, in respect of the said dispute, could be filed under Rule 101 CPC. He would also cite a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2000 (10) SCC 405 (Anwarbi ..vs.. Pramod D.A.Joshi) for the same principle. Yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1998 (3) SCC 723 (Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd., ..vs.. Rajiv Trust and another) was also relied upon for the same principle. Yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1988 SC 1754 (Silverline Forum Pvt.Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust) was also cited for the same principle. He would also submit in his argument that the procedure followed in conducting the suit should have been followed in case of an enquiry to be conducted under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. A judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in 2003 AIHC 3144 (Rajeev Dutta and others ..vs.. Punjab Wakf Board and another) was also relied upon for the said purpose. He would also submit that the entire procedure contemplated under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 CPC have not been followed by the courts below and it would be amounting to non-application of mind and therefore, there is no other option for this Court to remand the matter to the Executing Court for conducting enquiry in the form of a suit so as to give opportunity to both the parties. He would also submit that this Court may also look into the orders of the Civil Court granting an interim relief of temporary injunction against the petitioner / landlady not to disturb the possession of the respondent / third party and therefore, the petitioner / landlady cannot be permitted to evict the respondent / third party as an obstructionist and in fact, he is a statutory tenant. He would further submit that both the courts below have committed mistakes both in law and on facts and therefore, it is a fit case for interfering with and to set aside the orders passed by the courts below and to either dismiss the petition for removal of obstruction before the Executing Court or to remand the matter to the said court for giving opportunity to both parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in order to dispose the same on merits. He would therefore, request the Court to order the Revision and thereby, to set aside the orders passed by both the courts below with costs.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent / third party would submit in his argument that the eviction order was passed by the learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.788 of 2006 on 21.04.2009 and on the foot of the order, execution was launched in the month of June 2009 and delivery of the property was also ordered in the said Execution Petition. However, the respondent / third party has filed the suit clandestinely on 06.08.2009 before the City Civil Court at the instigation of the Judgment Debtor in the Execution Petition so as to defeat the fruits of the decree and had also obtained an order of injunction without disclosing the material particulars. He would further submit in his arguments that the alleged agreement said to have been entered into between the respondent / third party and the landlady on 20.10.2008 was not produced along with the plaint and a story has been put forth later that the original agreement was lost and a non-traceability certificate has been issued by the police on his complaint have been created for the purpose of the case. He would also submit that there was no lease agreement in between the petitioner / landlady and the respondent / third party, when there was already a tenant in occupation of the premises. He would further submit that the case of the respondent / third party that he had entered into a lease agreement with the petitioner / landlady and he lost the original lease agreement would be falsified by the agreement entered into between the tenant of the premises, namely, Reddy Cars and the respondent / third party (Mr.V.Balakrishnan S/o.Vellapalam) regarding the management housed in the demised property. He would further submit in his arguments that the eviction order obtained against the chief tenant would also bind on the petitioner even he is considered as the sub-tenant and therefore, it could be perceived that the third party had fabricated all these unscrupulous documents as if the landlady had entered into a lease agreement on 20.10.2008 and he had lost the said agreement and a complaint was given by him and a non-traceability certificate was given by the police. He would also submit that the continuity of the proceedings would be from the date of filing of the Rent Control Original Proceedings till it is over or even otherwise the execution proceedings have been launched in the month of June 2009 and thereafter only, the suit has been filed against the petitioner / landlady and the said order would not bind any order passed in the Execution Proceedings as per the provisions of Order 21 Rule 104 CPC. He would also bring it to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1373 (SC) (Bhaskaran ..vs.. Sheela) in support of the said principle.
12. Quoting the said principle, the learned counsel for the landlady would further argue that any order made under Rules 101 or 103 CPC would be subject to the result of the suit pending on the date of the commencement of the Execution Proceedings cannot be applied to the present case. He would, therefore, submit that on the date of commencement of execution proceedings in the month of June 2009, there was no case pending and therefore, there is no necessity of awaiting the orders passed in the said suit and the lower courts are empowered to pass orders in pursuance of the earlier decree passed on 21.04.2009, which is much earlier to the order dated 06.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.13598 of 2009 in O.S.No.6671 of 2009. He would also submit in his argument that in an enquiry under Order 21 Rules 97 and 98 CPC, if there is no necessity to frame issues like that of a suit, it is not necessary to frame issued to conduct trial elaborately like a suit. He would also cite a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in AIR 1997 Punjab and Haryana 130 (Som Parkash ..vs.. Santosh Rani) for the said principle. He would, therefore, submit that there is neither a necessity for setting aside the orders passed by the courts below nor to remand the matter as sought for by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner / third party. He would further submit that the courts below have reached concurrent findings and they have categorically come to the conclusion that the lease agreement has not been produced so as to establish a jural relationship of landlady and tenant and they have rightly dismissed the claim of third party and allowed the application to remove the obstruction. Therefore, he would request the court to dismiss the revision as not sustainable.
13. I have given anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced on either side.
14. The present Revision was filed against the concurrent orders passed by both the Executing Court in executing the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller in ordering the removal of obstruction under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and the order of confirmation by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority. The landlady has filed a petition before the Executing Court in E.A.No.135 of 2009 for removal of obstruction in respect of two rooms in the demised premises since the Amin (executing officer of the Court) entrusted with the work of the delivery of entire property had delivered the building, except two rooms which was occupied by the third party (revision petitioner herein), who obstructed the delivery. The said obstruction was made by the third party when the bailiff from the Court came to the petition premises on 02.11.2009 to execute the warrant of delivery. Even though the landlady had sought for removal of obstruction in respect of two rooms only, the third party put forth the claim that the entire ground floor portion was leased out to him by the landlady on 20.10.2008. Both the courts below have found that the lease agreement dated 20.10.2008 was not produced and therefore, there was no proof of any statutory tenancy in favour of the obstructor and therefore, the obstruction has to be removed.
15. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner / third party was that the said agreement entered into between the landlady and the third party on 20.10.2008 was lost and it was proved that it was lost through a non-traceability certificate issued by the police and therefore, the xerox copy ought to have been entertained with the help of the oral evidence, but it was denied by the Executing Court. Now the said document in xerox copy has also been produced in the form of typed set. Even otherwise the said agreement is found to be true, the obstructionist (third party) ought to have obstructed the delivery of the entire property, but he had obstructed only in respect of two rooms in his occupation.
16. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner (third party) would harp upon the point that no opportunity was given to adduce oral and documentary evidence before the execution court, the learned Rent Controller to establish the claim of the third party and therefore, it ought to have been remanded. It is not disputed by both the parties that the said point was not urged before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.590 of 2009, but they insisted only for reception of additional evidence and the application filed by both the parties were allowed and additional evidence was ordered to be received in Exs.P1 to P3 and Exs.R1 to R13. At the time of filing the petition for reception of additional evidence, there was no plea for adducing oral evidence also as additional evidence. Having failed to do so before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, it is not feasible for the revision petitioner to urge for a remand.
17. No doubt, it is true that the enquiry to be conducted under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC must be in consonance with the provisions of Order 21 Rule 101 CPC and the dispute in between the parties shall not be decided in a separate suit, but only under the said proceedings. Even though different views have been expressed by various High Courts regarding the conduct of such proceedings as a full fledged trial or to conduct it in the form an enquiry and need not resort to every step as a suit can be inferred from the judgments of High Courts of Himachal Pradesh and Punjab and Haryana as reported in 2003 AIHC 3144 (Rajeev Dutta and others ..vs.. Punjab Wakf Board and another) and AIR 1997 Punjab and Haryana 130 (Som Parkash ..vs.. Santosh Rani) respectively. The requirement of adducing evidence has been satisfied before the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority by producing additional evidence by both the parties and there was no requirement of adducing any further oral evidence at that stage and therefore, I could see that sufficient opportunities have already been given to both parties to adduce evidence so as to comply with the procedure to be followed in the trial of the suit. Therefore, the principles laid down by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and High Court of Punjab & Haryana stated above are not necessary to be applied here. Both the courts below have given sufficient opportunities to both parties to produce evidence and therefore, there is no question of any remand as asked for by the leaned counsel for the revision petitioner/third party.
18. In a judgment of this Court reported in 2008 (2) LW 564 (P.Chandran and six others ..vs.. Devaki and others) it has been stated that merely because the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has not concurred with the reasons of the trial court the case need not be remanded to lower court, but the first appellate court is required to give its own findings on the said points, but the relief would not be a remand. Therefore, I am quite sure that the remand would not help any party to settle the issue.
19. Nextly, when we approach merits of the case, I could see that a civil court has passed an order of temporary injunction against the landlady not to disturb the possession till the disposal of the suit. No doubt, that is a contested order. However, the learned counsel for the respondent herein (landlady) would submit that the said order passed in a suit filed at the instigation of the chief tenant will not bind a lawfully obtained decree against the chief tenant to proceed eviction against the persons claiming under him including a sub-tenant also. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1373 (Bhaskaran ..vs.. Sheela) has been relied upon by him. The case of the revision petitioner (third party) was that he was actually a tenant under the petitioner / landlady and therefore, he cannot be evicted in an eviction order obtained against the erstwhile tenant since the tenancy has been created in between the parties only on 20.10.2008. No doubt, both the courts below have come to a conclusion that there was no lease agreement produced and the lease was not proved. As already pointed out, the said copy of the lease agreement has been produced only now in the form of the typed set. When such document has not been produced throughout, it is not feasible to produce here for the purpose of drawing a legal relationship in between the parties. Contrary to the stand of the revision petitioner (third party), the landlady had produced a lease of management in between the Judgment Debtor and the Obstructor which was produced in Ex.P3 dated 16.03.2007. On a careful perusal of the said document, I could understand that the revision petitioner had entered into a management agreement and thereby, occupied the demised premises on behalf of the Judgment Debtor. In the said circumstances, the tenancy agreement pleaded by the revision petitioner cannot be considered as a true document and even otherwise, it is deemed to have been produced before the courts below. When the truth and genuineness of the said document has been questioned, it is for the obstructor to take steps immediately prior to the filing of the Execution Proceedings, but he had only taken steps to prevent the execution of the eviction order, and filed a suit and obtained an order of injunction during the pendency of Execution Proceedings.
20. In such circumstances, I have to see whether the claim of the revision petitioner that the lower court had passed an order contrary to the provisions of Order 21 Rules 97, 98 and 101 CPC. The judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to in 1997 (3) SCC 694 (Brahmdeo Chaudhary ..vs.. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another) and 1998 (3) SCC 723 (Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd., ..vs.. Rajiv Trust and another) have depicted the settled principles of law to the effect that any person can obstruct in the course of delivery of possession to be executed by the Executing Court. There is no dispute that the revision petitioner (third party) had obstructed the execution proceedings and that is why, the landlady has come forward with an application to remove the obstruction under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.
21. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2000 (10) SCC 405 (Anwarbi ..vs.. Pramod D.A.Joshi) as cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would depict the following principle:-
"3. In view of the obstruction so caused, it was for the decree-holder to take appropriate steps under Order 21 Rule 97 for removal of the obstruction and to have the rights of the parties including the obstructionist adjudicated under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 101. We do not know if any such proceedings have been taken by the decree-holders and whether such proceedings are pending or not. The appellant, however, made various applications including the present application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Order 21 Rule 35 and Order 21 Rule 101 for adjudication of her rights. All these applications of the appellant have been dismissed on the ground that these are premature since she is in possession.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant is being repeatedly threatened with dispossession. We, therefore make it clear that the possession of the appellant cannot be disturbed except in accordance with law; and that in view of the obstruction raised by her to the execution of the said decree, the rights of the obstructionist will have to be decided in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. Unless and until such proceedings terminate in favour of the decree-holder, the decree-holder cannot take possession and the appellant is entitled to retain possession."
22. In the light of the said judgment, I could understand that the possession of the person in occupation should not be disturbed except according to the procedure. Quoting the said judgment, the learned counsel insisted in his argument that the suit in O.S.No.6671 of 2009 should have been over because there was an interim injunction ordered by the said Court till the disposal of the suit after a stiff contest in between the parties.
23. Whether the removal of obstruction has to await the disposal of the said suit insofar as this case is concerned is the question. The answer is given in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1373 (SC) (Bhaskaran ..vs.. Sheela). The relevant passage is at paragraph No.14.
"14. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant regarding the applicability of Rule 104 of Order 21 of the Code has substance and merits consideration in an appropriate case, but they do not justify interference with the order of the High Court in the facts of this case. The suit filed by the appellant for specific performance of contract was considerably later in point of time than the commencement of the execution proceedings and, in any event, the language of Rule 104 is clear and unambiguous that any order made under Rule 101 or Rule 103 would be subject to the result of a suit pending on the date of commencement of the proceeding in which orders were made under Rule 101 or 103. Since the appellant's suit was filed long after the commencement of the execution proceedings, the provisions of Rule 104 of Order 21 of the Code will not apply to this case."
24. It has been categorically found that if any suit has been filed after the commencement of execution proceedings, the provision of Rule 104 of Order 21 of the Code will not apply. For that, we have to see the provisions of Order 21 Rule 104 CPC. It runs here under:-
"104. Order under rule 101 or rule 103 to be subject to the result or pending suit:-
Every order made under rule 101 or rule 103 shall be subject to the result of any suit that may be pending on the date of commencement of the proceeding in which such order is made, if in such suit the party against whom the order under rule 101 or rule 103 is made has sought to establish a right which he claims to the present possession of the property."
25. In the said provision, it has been categorically mentioned that any order passed under Rule 101 or 103 is subject to the result of the pending suits on the date of the commencement of the proceedings. As far as this case is concerned, the Execution Proceedings were launched in the month of June 2009, whereas the suit was filed by the Revision Petitioner / Obstructor (third party) only on 06.08.2009 for getting an order of interim injunction. Therefore, it is clear that on the date of filing of Execution Proceedings, the suit in O.S.No.6671 of 2009 was not filed and it was not pending. Therefore, it could be easily concluded that Order 21 Rule 104 CPC is not favourable to the revision petitioner / third party in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1373 (SC) (Bhaskaran ..vs.. Sheela). Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner cannot hold any water.
26. It could be seen from Ex.P3 that the Revision Petitioner (third party) was only a sub-tenant for management under the chief tenant viz., the Judgment Debtor in the E.P. Proceedings. It is a settled law that any order passed against the chief tenant would bind against the sub-tenant also. The eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller was not challenged and no stay has been granted by the Appellate Forum and it became final. It is already found that the Execution Proceedings taken against the Judgment Debtor will not be affected by any subsequent proceedings taken by the Revision Petitioner i.e., in O.S.No.6671 of 2009 on the file of the I Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Even though the temporary injunction order was passed by the said court, after hearing both parties, it is clearly a subsequent proceedings and it would not over ride the Execution Proceedings, which was already filed and pending, as per the judgment reported in 2009 (3) MLJ 1373 (SC) (Bhaskaran ..vs.. Sheela). Therefore, I could see that the courts below have categorically come to a correct conclusion that the Revision Petitioner has not established the jural relationship of tenant, but on the other hand, he was an obstructor / sub-tenant without any just cause and he was instigated by the Judgment Debtor and therefore, such obstruction has to be removed which are found to be in order. Therefore, I find no reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority in confirming the order passed in the petition for removal of obstruction in favour of the Decree Holder and accordingly, I am inclined to dismiss the revision after confirming the orders passed by the courts below.
27. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed after confirming the orders passed by the Executing Court as well as Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCA.No.590 of 2009 dated 22.07.2010. No order as to costs in this Revision. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that he may be given time in the E.P. proceedings for vacating the premises, to which, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a short time may be granted on filing an affidavit.
29. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the petitioner wanted to withdraw his possession decently, this Court is inclined to grant time upto 31st August, 2012, on filing an undertaking affidavit before this Court, after serving copy to other side, within a period of two weeks.
mra To:
1. The VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
2. The XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai