K SARAVANAKUMAR Vs. SHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the submissions made by Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Records available were also perused.

(2.) THE landlord in whose favour the eviction order was passed, after successfully resisting the RCA and the CRP, filed an execution petition to execute the order of eviction. However, the judgment debtors preferred an Execution Application before the Rent Controller (executing court) for the stay of the eviction order pending disposal of a suit filed to establish their title in respect of the property concerned in both the suit and the RCOP.

(3.) THE directions incorporated in the order of this court dated 03.04.2007 was passed in a Civil Revision Petition challenging the order of stay granted in an Execution Application, namely E.A.No.37 of 2004 in E.P.No.94 of 2003 in R.C.O.P.No.35 of 1992 on the file of the Rent Controller (Additional District Munsif), Vellore. THE said execution petition was filed for executing the order of eviction. THE order impugned in the CRP was an order granting stay of execution of the eviction order. If the directions issued by this court in the CRP is considered in the said background, it shall be obvious that the said direction could not be an absolute direction but only a conditional direction for continuing the order of stay granted in the Execution Application. THE necessary corollary is that the non-compliance of the conditional direction shall result in the stay order being vacated. THErefore, the present petition for contempt, according to the considered view of this court, is a misconceived one. Hence this petition deserves to be dismissed.