Judgment :- 1. Landlady has come to this Court with grievance that even after getting an eviction order and confirmed upto this Court, applications are being filed by tenant, preventing her from realising the fruits of the decree. 2. Landlady filed two rent control petitions on the ground that the tenant has committed default in paying the rent for two consecutive periods. Both the eviction petitions were allowed, holding that the tenant is a wilful defaulter. It was confirmed in Appeal and Revision, and the last order of this Court was dated 15, 4.1998 wherein this Court also found that the tenant is a wilful defaulter and he is therefore liable to be evicted from the building. 3. When, pursuant to order of this Court, landlady filed E.P. 206 of 1998, the tenant, to pre-empt the order of delivery, filed an application under Section 47, C.P.C., reiterating the same contention which he raised during trial of the eviction petitions. When such a petition was filed, though the executing Court ordered delivery, the Amin could not execute the warrant, and returned the warrant. Naturally, landlady was aggrieved by the procedure, and she wanted direction from this Court that the order of this Court should be implemented in all its seriousness. 4. When the Revision Petition came up for admission, I directed notice of motion. In response to that, first respondent entered appearance through counsel, and contended that this Revision is not maintainable in view of the decision reported in (1988) 3 SCC 57 ( Jagan Nath (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Chander Bhan and others ), wherein it has been said that ‘tenant cannot be deprived of the protection of Rent Control Act merely because his conduct before the Court had been unfair’. v. Chander Bhan and others ), wherein it has been said that ‘tenant cannot be deprived of the protection of Rent Control Act merely because his conduct before the Court had been unfair’. He also placed reliance of another decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 1222 ( Trimbak Gangadhar Telang & another v. Ramachandra Ganesh Bhide and others ) wherein it has been held thus:— “It is also well-established that it is only when an order of a Tribunal is violative of the fundamental basic principles of justice and fair play or where a patent or flagrant error in procedure or law has crept or where the order passed results in manifest injustice, that a Court can justifiably intervene under Article 227 of the Constitution.” I do not think any of the aforesaid decisions has any application to the acts of this case. This of is not a case where the tenant was not given an opportunity, to defend himself. He came upto this Court, and this Court found that he is a wilful defaulter. Now, the contention that certain facts were not brought to the notice of this Court or before the Rent Controller cannot be raised in execution, and if any application under Sec. 47 C.P.C., is entertained, it will amount to disobedience of orders of this Court. The contentions are barred by res judicata, and the executing Court cannot go behind the Order passed by this Court. There is no scope for entertaining any application under S. 47, C.P.C. 5. I only direct the executing Court to see” that the landlady (decree holder) is given possession of the premises in question within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear to the executing-” Court that no extension of time will be granted. Executing Court should report compliance of the above direction on or before 4.9.W98. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner (landlady, submitted that in view of the conduct of the tenant, there is every possibility of delivery being obstructed. I am of the view that the executing Court will provide adequate and necessary police protection even without waiting for any separate application from the landlady for that purpose, for implementing this order. The Revision Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Connected CMP is closed. 7. Call this matter on 4.9.1998.