MADAVI AMMA Vs. NALLAMMAL AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the course of proceedings for execution of an order for eviction under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, the present petitioner caused an obstruction which was directed to be removed by the executing Court. This revision petition which is preferred against the order of removal is sought to be sustained by Mr. M. S. Venkatarama Aiyar learned advocate for the petitioner, with reference to Section 12(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, as amended by Madras Act 8 of 1951.

(2.) A two -fold objection has been raised to the case of the petitioner before me by Mr. Vaithiswaran, learned advocate for the respondent. Firstly he says that the proper remedy for the petitioner is a suit under Order 21, Rule 103 , Civil P. C. as would follow from the ruling of this Court reported in - - 'Mathradas Vadilal v. : AIR1951Mad822 (A), which in its turn is based upon an earlier Bench ruling of this Court in - - 'Thangaswami Chettiar v. : AIR1951Mad804 (B). I am not satisfied that this objection can be upheld. Where the Act does itself provide for revisability of an order of the kind with which I am concerned, as indeed Section 12(b) of the Act does, I do not think I shall be justified in refusing to consider the merits of this revision on the ground of the existence of a remedy by way of a separate suit. It is true that ordinarily I do not interfere in revision where there is a remedy by way of a suit, but as I have said revision being the remedy specifically provided for by Section 12(b) of the Apt, I proceed to consider the merits of this case.