MAMMOO Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent herein, landlord of a building, took out execution of an order passed by the Rent Control Court for eviction of the 2nd respondent from that building. It is common case before me that though the lower court on 8-3-1977 ordered issue of warrant for delivery of the building and warrant was issued, the Amin returned the same without effecting delivery on account of obstruction caused by the 1st revision petitioner and his brother. Thereafter, on 18-7-1977, the 1st respondent filed an application for ordering issue of warrant for delivery of the building with the help of the Police -- it is his case that during 29-3-1977 to 10-7-1977 execution stood stayed by the order of the Sub Court, Badagara, in I. A. No. 634 of 1977 in CMA. No. 19 of 1977 preferred against dismissal of an application for temporary injunction, 1. A. No. 1181 of 1976 in O S.137 of 1976 on the file of the lower court instituted by the sister of the 2nd respondent. The lower court ordered issue of warrant for delivery of the building with Police aid. The Amin returned the warrant so issued again reporting obstruction by the 1st revision petitioner. The revision petitioners filed an application for recalling the aforesaid warrant. The lower court dismissed the same by the order under revision.

(2.) The points for consideration are as to whether the execution court has power to direct police aid to effect delivery of possession of property, and if it has, what is its nature, and what are the limitations, if any, thereon Before examining these questions it is necessary to advert to a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the 1st respondent that this CRP. is not competent. The submission is that under the proviso to S.14 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, (for brevity, the Act) an order passed in execution is not appealable and is revisable by the court to which appeals ordinarily He against the decisions of the Munsiff executing the order for eviction. It is not disputed, and rightly so, that the Munsiff executes an order passed under the Act not as a persona designata, but as one filling the office of Munsiff. If so the order under revision is a non appealable order passed by a Munsiff's Court and is revisable by this Court. At the most what could be said is that it is improper to rush to this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction before the revisional jurisdiction conferred by the proviso on the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the Munsiff's Court, is invoked.

(3.) The Code does not by any of the provisions therein expressly confer power on the Court to seek the aid of the Police force whose duty and function it is, in the language employed by Lord Denning M. R. in R v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner 1968 (1) All. ER 763, 'to enforce the law of the land' not 'as the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. The learned Master of the Roles pointed out: