(Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the proceedings on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Theni in E.P. No. 25 of 2006 in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1996.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Theni in E.P. No. 25 of 2006 in R.C.O.P. No. 1 of 1996, as without juricdiction, void ab initio and non est in law.

2. The Respondents/Landlord filed a Petition in R.C.O.P No. 1 of 1996 against the Petitioner seeking eviction before the Rent Controller, Periyakulam under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as the Act) and the same was allowed and eviction was ordered, as against which, the Petitioner/Tenant filed an Appeal in R.C.A. No. 14 of 1998, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent filed an Execution Petition in E.P. No. of 2005 before the Rent Controller, Periyakulam. In mean while, a separate District Munsif Court was constituted at Theni under G.O.Ms. No. 69, Home (Courts III), dated 23.1.2006. Under the said G.O., in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873, a separate District and Sessions Court, Chief Judicial Magistrates Court and District Munsif Court were constituted with effect from the date on which the respective presiding officers assumed charge on 28.1.2006.

3. The relevant passage in G.O.Ms. No.69 Home (Courts III), dated 23.1.2006 in relation to constitution of District Munsif Court, Theni is extracted below:

Notification XI No. II (2)/HO/50(a-11)/2006: In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 (Central Act III of 1873), the Government of Tamul Nadu after consultation with the High Court, Madras hereby fixes the number of District Munsif to be appointed to the District Munsifs Court, Theni as one with effect from the date on which the District Munsif, Theni assumes charge of that Court.

4. Mr. S. Ramachandran, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner challenges the execution proceeding and the orders passed thereto by the learned District Munsif on the ground that only the Rent Controller shall execute any order passed under Sections 10, 15, 16 & 17 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and the District Munsif, Theni has no jurisdiction to execute the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Periyakulam under the colour of office, when he is not appointed to the post of Rent Controller, Theni under the relevant provision of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in this case K.R. Sankar, etc,. v. M.A. Buvanambal Ammal, 1971 (1) MLJ 230 [LQ/MadHC/1970/267] , wherein it is held as follows:

Where, however, an officer had not been appointed to a particular post or he not invested with certain powers, but neverthelese he functioned or exercised such powers, a different principle should apply. Acts done under colour of office stand entirely on a different footing.

Here, there was no appointment at all of the Additional District Munsif as a controller. The Additional District Munsif in disposing of the Petitioners for eviction could not, therefore, be said to have acted under the colour of any office to which he was appointed. The orders passed by the Additional District Munsif were totally without jurisdiction.

6. In the above said decision, the power of the High Court to set under Section 2(3) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 investing Additional District Munsif with the power of controller was held to be without jurisdiction, as the power is vested in the executive under the . Of constitution and it is held that the said power cannot be exercised by the High Court.

7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Limited and another v. State of Haryana and others, 2006 (3) SCC 620 , [LQ/SC/2006/223] to countenance his submission that a statute cannot be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such constitution appears very clearly in terms thereof or arises by necessary and district application.

8. In the present case, we need not go into the said question as only Execution proceeding were transferred to the file of the District Munsif, Theni a newly constituted Court by virtue of the said GO.Ms. No. 69 dated 23.11.2006. Already eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, Periyakulam, which was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellant Authority, Periyakulam. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the learned District Munsif, Theni cannot pass order in the Execution Petition for eviction, as he was not appointed as the Rent Controller on the said date, when he assumed charge as District Munsif cannot be sustained, as in the present case Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 enables the Civil Court to execute an order of eviction, as if it were a decree passed by the Court. Since the eviction order is treated as a decree of Court and taken to a Civil Court for execution as per Section 18, such proceedings will be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to execution of decrees so long as the provisions of the Control Act did not modify or restrict the power of the Civil Court under the Code.

9. In the decision of this Court rendered in the case of V. Ramaswamy Iyer v. K. Ramakrishnayya, 1969 (2) MLJ 272 [LQ/MadHC/1968/167] , as early as in 1969, the suit question has been raised and discussed and His Lordship Justice T. Ramaprasada Rao has held as follows:

It, therefore, follows that it is a decree of a Civil Court that was sought to be executed by the Respondent ever since 1958. He attempted once in the year, 1958, followed it up in 1961 and thereafter in 1966 taking advantage of the provisions of the new Indian Limitation Act of 1963. There can be no doubt at all that the Respondent had at all material times the right to execute this decree. The order which has entered into the portals of the City Civil Court for the purpose of execution should be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court. In this view, the Second contention that as the decree is not that of a Civil Court, but that of the Rent Controller and hence, inexecutable cannot be countenanced at all.

10. In another decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Subramania Pillai v. Rajakkani Nadar and another, 1971 (1) MLJ 223 [LQ/MadHC/1970/206] , the Division Bench has held as follows:

The filed enjoyed by Section 18 of the Act attracts to evection order the entire procedure of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable to execution of a decree. When a fiction is created statutorily, it must be no doubt be limited to its purpose, but, for the purpose for which it was created, the putative state of affairs should be excluded. In other words, the expression as if it were a decree passed by the District Munsif would have the effect of decree passed by him. On that view rule 32 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules would have no application to the execution of an eviction order passed under the Act.

11. In another decision rendered in the case of this Court in the case of Asarab Ali and 6 others v. V. Uthirapathi, 1998 (1) CTC 154 [LQ/MadHC/1997/1052] , this Court while dealing with Section 18 of the Rent Controller Act held that after an eviction order has been passed when Execution Petition is filed, the Executing Court is a Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and it shall have all the powers of a Civil Court. The relevant portion in the said decision is extracted below:

If only the Court below had taken into consideration Section 18 of the Rent Controller Act, this blunder would not been committed. After trial when a Rent Control Petition is ordered and eviction is allowed, when Execution Petition is filed, the Executing Court is a Civil Court under Section 28 of the Act and it shall have all the powers of a Civil Court. It is not disputed that the decree holder died after filing the Execution Petition. The Rule relied on by the Court below has no application at the Execution stage. Rule 32 deals with impleading of legal heirs when a Rent Control Petition is pending. Neither Order 32 of the Civil Procedure Code nor the provision of the Rent Control Act will apply for impleading legal heirs in execution. There is no time limit for the legal heirs to come on record. The only limitation is, whether the decree is in time. For executing a decree, 12 years period is available t the decree holder.

12. In view of the decisions stated supra, the position of law is well settled that the Civil Court will have jurisdiction to execute the eviction order under Section 18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. By applying said principle, the District Munsif, Theni has got jurisdiction to execute the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller, Periyakulam, as if it were a decree passed by the said Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be sustained and this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.