A. ARUNAGIRI Vs. S.P. RATHINASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord is the petitioner. He filed an application under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for eviction of the respondent who is unfortunately not represented before me. The petitioner obtained an ex parte order of eviction and pursuant thereto took possession of the property from the respondent. The respondent, however, filed an application to set aside the ex parte order and was successful. Basing on the observations in Raso Moopanar V. Ramamurthi Iyer, (1967) 1 M.L.J. 287, the respondent sought re -delivery of the property from the petitioner which the Court below directed. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) THE contention of Mr. Venkataraman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the ratio in Raso Moopanar v. Ramamurthi Iyer, (1967) 1 M.L.J. 287, is no longer good law, as it has been reversed in Mayilsami Gounder v. Mummoorthi Chettiar C.R.P. No. 439 of 1967, by a Division Bench of this Court to which the learned Chief Justice is a party.

(3.) IT is, therefore, clear that in the absence of an express provision or a provision by necessary intendment which would enable a civil Court to direct re -delivery, the civil Court does not possess such power.