The revision petitioner is the tenant in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 on the file of the learned XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. That application was filed by him against the present respondent who is the landlord under Sec.17(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 18 of 1960 for restoration of the electricity amenity for the portion of ground floor bearing door No.35, Perumal 2nd Street, Purasawakkam, Madras, of which he is the tenant. There is no dispute that the revision petitioner is in occupation of the two room portion of the ground floor of door No.35 which has separate latrine and bath. According to him, the respondent landlord sought his eviction in R.C.O.P. No.69 of 1991 on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. During the pendency of that application, the landlord disconnected the electricity of the petitioners portion on 19.6.1991. So, he filed R.C.O.P. No.1890 of 1991 for restoration of the amenity. The respondent landlord restored electricity on 9.10.1991 and on 20.11.1992 R.C.O.P.No.l890 of 1991 was dismissed. The landlord again disconnected electricity on 19.8.1992 after the dismissal of R.C.O.P.No.69 of 1991 on 10.7.1992. On 25.11.1992 the tenant came forward with R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992. On 29.3.1993 learned Rent Controller allowed R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 and directed the landlord to restore electricity connection within fifteen days from that date. The landlord took up the matter in appeal in R.C.A. No.373 of 1993 before the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras. On 19.1.1994 the appeal was allowed and the order of the learned Rent Controller was set aside. The tenant preferred C.R.P. No. 1099 of 1994 in this Court against the said order of the appellate authority. On 25.4.1994 Civil Revision Petition No. 1099 of 1994 was dismissed as not pressed.

2. In the meanwhile, on 14.7.1993 tenant filed E.P. No.406 of 1993 in R.C.O.P.

No.3117 of 1992 in the Court of Small Causes of Madras for execution of the order passed in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992. This was during the pendency of R.C.A. No.373 of 1993. The records disclose that the stay petition in Miscellaneous Petition No.628 of 1993 in R.C.A. No.373 of 1993 had been dismissed on 30.4.1993. The mode of execution sought for was by way of direction to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kellys, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Bricklin Road, Madras-7 to give separate electricity connection to the portion in the occupation of the revision- petitioner. On 15.7.1993 the court ordered Heard, Restore by 29.7.1993. On 10.9.1993 the execution petition was closed for the reason that the decree-holder himself represented that the direction had been complied with.

3. However, after R.C.A. No.373 of 1993 was allowed on 12.1.1994 the landlord filed E.P. No.217 of 1994 in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 on 4.3.1994 seeking restoration under Sec.144, Civil Procedure Code and Sec.18 of Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 1960 by issue of a warrant to the Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Purasawakkam, Madras by disconnection of service connection given as per warrant in E.P. No.406 of 1993. This petition was allowed by the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes on 3.8.1994 and he ordered restoration of the old position by 19.8.1994. This revision is directed against the said order.

4. Thiru S.S.Trivedi, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the landlord cannot file an execution petition under section 18 of the Rent Control Act in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 which is an application by the tenant for restoration of electricity. The court below has no power to entertain an application under Sec.18 of the. According to learned counsel, the tenant has obtained electricity service connection in his own name after carrying out the wiring work at his cost. Since the revision petitioner tenant has now become a direct consumer under the Electricity Board, any subsequent order of the court cannot affect his right. Once the order of learned Rent Controller is executed under the provisions of Sec.18 of the, no restoration is possible. It is not as if the tenant has obtained service connection as an extension from the landlords Meter. Instead in E.P. No.406 of 1993 he was given separate service connection and he got a Meter installed in his own name. Restoration could only be of the status quo prevailing prior to the filing of R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992. There cannot now be a restoration by disconnecting the Meter which stands in the name of the tenant.

5. I may at once say that the claim of the revision petitioner is wholly without merits. It is significant to note that in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 revision petitioner has prayed for an order directing the respondent landlord to restore the electricity amenity for the portion in his occupation. The averments in that petition are to the effect that in addition to the rent the tenant has paid to the landlord the electricity consumption charges as per the sub-Meter provided for the landlord in the demised premises. In addition, the common light charges at Re.l per month is also paid by him. The order in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 is that the landlord should restore electricity within 15 days from 29.3.1993. However, in E.P. No.406 of 1993 the revision petitioner tenant sought execution of the order in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 by seeking a direction to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to give separate electricity connection to the portion in his occupation. Evidently this mandate to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to give separate electricity connection has been clandestinely introduced in the execution petition as if it is the decree in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992. Though the landlord is shown as judgment- debtor in E.P. No.405 of 1993 he was kept in darkness about the new relief asked for in the execution petition which is different from that in the decretal order. The court notice to the Assistant Executive Engineer directed him to given separate electricity service connection to the tenants portion in the ground floor. The report of the Amin is to the effect that notice was served on the Assistant Executive Engineer on 16.7.1993. On 8.9. 1993, the tenant preferred a Memo in E.P. No.406 of 1993 stating that the power connection was granted on 21.8.1993. The relief prayed for in E.P. No.406 of 1993 was available to him then.

Thereupon on 10.9.1993 learned Judge passed an order on the petition as follows:

"Purpose of E.P served. E.P. closed with liberty to the petitioner claim cost as per rules."

From this it is crystal clear that the present service connection with a separate Meter in the name of the tenant has come into existence only by virtue of the orderinE.P.No.406 of1993 in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992. The tenant having managed to get a separate Meter installed in his room twisting the relief asked for fraudulently behind the back of the landlord while seeking to execute the order in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 has no legs to resist the present claim of the landlord to restore the position which was prevailing prior to the filing of the R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 on 25.11.1992. Since the original order passed by learned Rent Controller in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992 is non est in view of the allowing the appeal in R.C.A. No.406 of 1993 any advantage secured by the tenant in execution of the original order cannot be perpetuated. It is a basic rule that the court will not permit a suitor to suffer by reason of a wrong order which was made and that when once an error is discovered it will as far as possible put him in the position which he would have occupied if the wrong order has not been made. In exercising this equitable jurisdiction under Sec.144. C.P.C the courts should act rightly and firmly according to the circumstances towards all the parties involved. Sec.18 of the gives all the powers of the Civil Procedure Code to the Rent Controller including the power to order restoration. So, there is no infirmity in the order of the court below which warrants any interference.

6. Besides, the present revision petitioner has played a fraud on court when he sought execution in E.P. No.406 of 1993 by cleverly substituting a relief which was not actually granted to him in R.C.O.P. No.3117 of 1992. It is cheating pure and simple. It is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Chengalvaraya Naidu v. V.Jagannath, etc. (1994)1 L. W. 21:

"The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court must come with clean-hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

...."Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/ decree by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings."

Evidently the Apex Court was having persons like the present civil revision petitioner in mind when making the above observations. Conceding the claim of the revision petitioner in this case would be to set a premium on fraud and on this ground also the civil revision petition deserves dismissal. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. Advocates fee is fixed at Rs.1,000.