Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1046 (MAD)

G. Nageswara Rao v. R. Shankar

2000-10-20

P.THANGAVEL

body2000
Judgment : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the tenant/appellant as revision petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 8. 2000 and made in R.C.No.849 of 1997 on the file of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming partially the order of the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.2686 of 1994. .2. Thebrief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows: .The respondent herein who is the landlord along with his co-sharers are the owners of the petition mentioned premises and the revision petitioner herein, who is the respondent before the Rent Controller, became a tenant of the said premises in the year 1970 on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000. The revision petitioner, as tenant, has committed willful default in payment of rent for the period from May, 1994 to September, 1994 and has also sublet a portion of the demised premises without the permission of the landlord of the said premises. The revision petitioner has also made material alteration in the building, thereby causing wastage to the said building. The respondent herein, is in occupation of a rented premises and therefore, he requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation, since the landlord of the premises Amarchand Kothari has threatened to initiate proceedings for eviction from the said premises by filing a suit before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. It is on these grounds, the respondent herein, as landlord, has sought for eviction of the revision petitioner, as tenant, from the demised premises. 3. The revision petitioner while admitting occupation of the demised premises as tenant from 1970 and paying monthly rent of Rs.1,000 before filing of the eviction proceedings has disputed the right of the respondent herein to initiate eviction proceedings without impleading the other sharers. The revision petitioner according to him, has paid the rent to late Rukmani Ammal upto 1994 when she died and thereafter he could not pay the rent to the landlord or other sharers since the revision petitioner was not aware as to whom the rent has to be paid. The revision petitioner has not sublet any portion of the building to anybody and had also not materially altered the demised premises thereby affecting the utility or value of the said building. The revision petitioner has not sublet any portion of the building to anybody and had also not materially altered the demised premises thereby affecting the utility or value of the said building. According to the revision petitioner, the respondent herein, has to establish that his landlord has threatened to evict him from the premises, in which he is residing and also the non-payment of rent by the revision petitioner to the demised premises. It is on these grounds, the revision petitioner, as respondent before the Rent Controller, has sought for dismissal of the petition. 4. After considering the submissions made by both sides, and in the light of the material evidence available before the court, the learned Rent Controller has ordered eviction of the revision petitioner from the demised premises on the grounds of own use and occupation, wilful default and causing damage to the property but negatived the eviction sought for on the ground of subletting. Aggrieved at the order dated 30.9.1997 and made in R.C.O.P.No.2686 of 1994 on the file of the learned Rent Controller, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, the tenant/respondent as appellant has preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.849 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority namely, VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 5. Learned VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, after hearing the submissions made by both sides and in the light of the evidence available on record, confirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller on the grounds of own use and occupation and willful default but set aside the eviction ordered on the ground of causing damage to the property by the revision petitioner as tenant. Aggrieved at the judgment and decree dated 8. 2000 and made in R.C.A.No.849 of 1997 on the file of the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, the appellant as revision petitioner has come forward with this civil revision petition. .6. The fact remains that the respondent herein and the members of his family are entitled to the property described in this petition. It is equally not in dispute that this property was originally owned by Ramanujulu Naidu and after his death, the said property devolved on the sharers inclusive of the respondent herein. .6. The fact remains that the respondent herein and the members of his family are entitled to the property described in this petition. It is equally not in dispute that this property was originally owned by Ramanujulu Naidu and after his death, the said property devolved on the sharers inclusive of the respondent herein. The fact also remains that the revision petitioner herein had become a tenant under Ramanujulu Naidu in the year 1970 and was paying initially a monthly rent of Rs.300 which has raised to Rs.1,000 per month earlier to the initiation of the proceedings for eviction. The revision petitioner was paying rent, admittedly, upto April, 1994 to late Tmt.Rukmani Ammal, wife of Ramanujulu Naidu and thereafter stopped paying the rent to any of the heirs of late Ramanujulu Naidu including the respondent herein. According to the learned counsel for the respondent herein if there was any difficulty for the revision petitioner to identify the landlord or heirs or their authorised agent, the revision petitioner was at liberty to approach the Rent Control Court to deposit the rent lawfully payable to the landlord/landlords in respect of the said building and continue to deposit the rent subsequently until the circumstances warrants, as per Sec.9 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. In this case, the revision petitioner has not chosen to approach the Rent Control Court as contemplated under Sec.9 of the abovesaid Act to deposit the rent for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the reason as mentioned above by the revision petitioner for the nonpayment of rent cannot be accepted in the light of the abovesaid provision of law. 7. The fact remains that the revision petition has not paid the rent for the period from May, 1994 to September, 1994 and also thereafter till he deposits a sum of Rs.48,000 in Rent Control Appellate Court on 111. 1997 to obtain an order of stay for eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller. 7. The fact remains that the revision petition has not paid the rent for the period from May, 1994 to September, 1994 and also thereafter till he deposits a sum of Rs.48,000 in Rent Control Appellate Court on 111. 1997 to obtain an order of stay for eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller. The reason given for non-payment of rent by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is that there was an agreement for purchase of demised premises between the revision petitioner and one Arumugam and Kousika Bhoopathy, who are third parties to this proceeding wherein the abovesaid persons had agreed to sell the demised property after purchasing the same from the owners under an agreement said to have been entered into between Arumugam and Kousika Bhoopathy on one hand and three sharers out of six sharers on the other hand. It is relevant to point out that it is an admitted fact that this respondent was not one among the three sharers who are said to have entered into an agreement to sell the demised property to the abovesaid Arumugam and Kousika Bhoopathy. While there is no agreement for sale between the revision petitioner herein and the respondent herein or the other sharers of the demised premises, it is not known as to how the revision petitioner is claiming to have an agreement of sale with regard to the demised premises with the respondent herein or with other sharers of this property. 8. Learned, counsel for the revision petitioner Thiru Kailasam has brought to the notice of this Court the decision of the Apex Court reported in R.Kanthimathi and another v. Mrs.Beatrice Xavier, (with office report) R.Kanthimathi and another v. Mrs.Beatrice Xavier, (with office report) R.Kanthimathi and another v. Mrs.Beatrice Xavier, (with office report) (2000)2 L.W. 805 wherein it was held that if there is an agreement of sale between the landlord and the tenant and if a substantial portion of the sale consideration was received by the landlord from the tenant, the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases and fresh rights and obligations flow under the agreement. It was held so, if the following circumstances are available: (1) re-assertion of possession in the agreement of sale denotes that possession was given in pursuance of agreement of sale, and (2) on acceptance of such change, the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases. It was held so, if the following circumstances are available: (1) re-assertion of possession in the agreement of sale denotes that possession was given in pursuance of agreement of sale, and (2) on acceptance of such change, the relationship of landlord and tenant ceases. If such conditions are in existence, then the tenant cannot be said to have committed wilful default. .9. Learned counsel Thiru Kailasam has also brought to the notice of this Court the decision of the Apex Court reported in Imambi v. Azeeza Bee , (2000)2 L.W. 808 wherein the question, whether the status of tenant would continue to be so even after an agreement of sale is executed by tenant with landlord in respect of the same tenanted premises, has been considered. In that case a sale deed was executed in favour of the tenant with regard to the half share of the property and an agreement of sale was executed by the landlord in favour of the tenant for the remaining part of the said property. In the abovesaid circumstances, the Apex Court was pleased to hold that the status of tenant after the execution of sale agreement ceases to that property and the tenant is changed to be a purchaser of the said property apart from the tenant becoming co-owner with the landlord. In this case, as it is already pointed out, there is no agreement of sale between the revision petitioner on one hand and the respondent herein or the other sharers on the other hand and therefore, the revision petitioner cannot claim that his status has been changed to be one as purchaser instead of tenant. The alleged agreement said to have been executed by one Arumugam and Kousika Bhoopathy in favour of the revision petitioner with regard to the demised premises for sale after purchasing the said property from the sharers by the said Arumugam and Kousika Bhoopathy, will not in any way confer any right to the revision petitioner in the demised property to claim the status of a purchaser in the place of tenant. Therefore, the rulings cited by the learned counsel Mr.Kailasam will not help the revision petitioner in any respect to claim change of status from tenant to purchaser. 10. Therefore, the rulings cited by the learned counsel Mr.Kailasam will not help the revision petitioner in any respect to claim change of status from tenant to purchaser. 10. The fact remains that the alleged agreement between the revision petitioner on one hand and Arumugam and Kousika Bhoopathy on the other hand was said to have been executed on 11. 1994. The Rent Control Petition for eviction was filed by the respondent herein as petitioner before the Rent Controller on 210. 1994. A counter was filed by the revision petitioner in the Rent Control proceedings on 210. 1995. There was no mention about the existence of the agreement dated 11. 1994 referred to above in the counter filed by the revision petitioner. No reason was given as to why the abovesaid fact of execution of an agreement as mentioned above on 11. 1994 was not mentioned in the counter filed by the revision petitioner as respondent before the Rent Controller. Since the respondent herein has already filed a petitioner for eviction on 29. 1994, admittedly there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent herein and the revision petitioner. The execution of the alleged agreement dated 11. 1994 by a third party in favour of the revision petitioner with regard to the demised property, while the third party has no right in that property as on that date and while the respondent herein and other co-sharers are not party to the agreement of sale with the revision petitioner, the revision petitioner cannot claim that there was change of status from tenant to purchaser to the revision petitioner on the date of filing of the rent control petition and also subsequently. 11. It is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner has filed a suit in C.S.No.207 of 1997 on the file of the High Court against the respondent herein and other sharers and the abovesaid third parties for specific performance with regard to the demised property on the strength of the said agreement dated 11. 1994 and the suit was admittedly dismissed holding that the said agreement was a fabricated one and that therefore, it cannot be enforced against the parties to the said suit. .12. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has filed an appeal in O.S.A.No.139 of 1999 on the file of the Division Bench of this Court and the same is pending. 1994 and the suit was admittedly dismissed holding that the said agreement was a fabricated one and that therefore, it cannot be enforced against the parties to the said suit. .12. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has filed an appeal in O.S.A.No.139 of 1999 on the file of the Division Bench of this Court and the same is pending. In that appeal proceeding before the Division Bench, admittedly, the revision petitioner as petitioner has filed petitions under C.M.P.Nos.13624 and 13625 of 1999 in O.S.A.No.139 of 1999 for stay of rent control proceedings before the Rent Controller and also for injuncting the respondent herein from demolishing the suit property. After considering the submissions made on both sides, the Division Bench of this Court has refused to grant the reliefs sought for by the revision petitioner in the abovesaid petitions holding that the revision petitioner, as petitioner therein, can claim the status of a tenant in so far as the possession of the property is concerned and that he cannot assert any other rights over the property. Since the tenancy is subjected to the provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the proceedings initiated under that Act, cannot be stayed on the ground of the tenancy of this revision petitioner. Therefore, it is evident that the Division Bench of this High Court has also declared in a pending proceeding initiated under the alleged agreement dated 11. 1994, which was held to be a fabricated one by the single Judge of this High Court, that the revision petitioner is having only a status of tenant and not that of a purchaser. 13. The fact also remains that the revision petitioner, as petitioner, has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.5555 of 2000 in O.S.A.No.139 of 1999 on the file of the Division Bench of this High Court for permission to issue a cheque for Rs.25,25,000 deposited by the revision petitioner in the specific performance suit in C.S.No.207 of 1994 referred to above. 13. The fact also remains that the revision petitioner, as petitioner, has filed a petition in C.M.P.No.5555 of 2000 in O.S.A.No.139 of 1999 on the file of the Division Bench of this High Court for permission to issue a cheque for Rs.25,25,000 deposited by the revision petitioner in the specific performance suit in C.S.No.207 of 1994 referred to above. In that proceeding, the respondent herein resisted for issue of a cheque for the entire amount without paying the arrears of rent of Rs.17,000 due after deposit of Rs.48,000 before the Rent Control Authority to grant stay of execution of the order passed by the Rent Controller towards 17 months and also cost of Rs.59,000 due to be paid by the revision petitioner herein to the respondents herein towards the disposal of the suit in C.S.No.207 of 1994 on the file of the High Court, Madras. The objections raised by the respondent herein as respondent in that petition was acceptable to the Division Bench and has directed to deposit a sum of Rs.76,000 towards cost and arrears of rent out of the amount of Rs.25,25,000 deposited by the revision petitioner before the court and to issue a cheque for the balance amount. In that proceeding also, the Division Bench of this High Court, has recognised the status of the revision petitioner only as a tenant and not as a purchaser on the strength of the alleged agreement dated 11. 1994, which was held to be a fabricated one already by the single Judge of this Court. It is evident from the facts stated supra that the revision petitioner, who is a tenant of the demised premises, has not only committed wilful default in payment of rent for the period from May, 1994 to September, 1994 but also continued to commit wilful default in payment of rent during the pendency of the rent control proceedings upto 111. 1997 when a sum of Rs.48,000 towards arrears of rent for 48 months was deposited before the Rent Control Appellate Authority as per the direction of the said authority to stay the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller and also thereafter for 17 months till, the order was passed by the Division Bench of this High Court to deduct Rs.17,000 towards arrears out of the amount deposited by the revision petitioner in C.S.No.207 of 1994 on the file of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent herein points out that a sum of Rs.4,000 is also due towards four months rent even today. No acceptable reason was given by the revision petitioner as to who he has not approached the court to deposit the rent if there is any difficulty in paying the rent either to the respondent or to the other sharers of the demised premises before filing a petition for eviction and also for not paying the rent throughout during the pendency of the proceedings until a directions were given by the competent courts to pay the arrears of rent. 14. In the case of M.Balu v. K.Jawahar and others M.Balu v. K.Jawahar and others M.Balu v. K.Jawahar and others (2000)I MLJ. 535, it has been held by a single Judge of this High Court that subsequent conduct of tenant can also be taken into account to decide whether the tenant has committed wilful default or not. .15. In the case of Leathersmith Enterprises represented by its Proprietor, George K.Thomas v. Master Sharan G.Karnani, Minor represented by his Father and Guardian, Govind G.Karnani, by Power Agent Wilfred Harding Leathersmith Enterprises represented by its Proprietor, George K.Thomas v. Master Sharan G.Karnani, Minor represented by his Father and Guardian, Govind G.Karnani, by Power Agent Wilfred Harding Leathersmith Enterprises represented by its Proprietor, George K.Thomas v. Master Sharan G.Karnani, Minor represented by his Father and Guardian, Govind G.Karnani, by Power Agent Wilfred Harding (2000)1 MLJ. 757 , it has been held by a single Judge of this Court that the court can take note of the tenant not paying the rents even during the pendency of proceedings to hold commission of wilful default in payment of rent. 16. In the case of the The Nilgiris Co-operative Marketing Society represented by its Secretary, Mr.Halan having its registered Office at Sailing House at Ootacamund v. C.T.Uthandi The Nilgiris Co-operative Marketing Society represented by its Secretary, Mr.Halan having its registered Office at Sailing House at Ootacamund v. C.T.Uthandi The Nilgiris Co-operative Marketing Society represented by its Secretary, Mr.Halan having its registered Office at Sailing House at Ootacamund v. C.T.Uthandi (1998)2 MLJ. 745 , it has been held by a single Judge of this High Court that the tenant has a legal obligation to tender the rent to the landlord month after month and payment of entire arrears of rent on receipt of summons on date fixed for appearance of tenant in the court in a proceeding initiated for eviction on the ground of wilful default does not absolve him of disqualification suffered. 17. In the case of B.Anraj Pipada v. V.Umayal B.Anraj Pipada v. V.Umayal B.Anraj Pipada v. V.Umayal, (1998)2 MLJ. 524 it has been held by a single Judge of this Court that the conduct of the tenant in not paying the rents properly during the course of proceedings will amount to wilful default. 18. In the case of Majestice Leatherware represented by its Proprietor, SM.M.Mahboob Basha, Chennai v. Govinda Chetty Majestice Leatherware represented by its Proprietor, SM.M.Mahboob Basha, Chennai v. Govinda Chetty Majestice Leatherware represented by its Proprietor, SM.M.Mahboob Basha, Chennai v. Govinda Chetty , (1999)3 MLJ. 398 it has been held by a single Judge of this Court that there is no need to issue a notice to the tenant by the landlord before filing eviction petition and the tenant depositing 30 months arrears of rent into court in lump sum without offering explanation for nor payment of rent, will amount to willful default. 19. In the case of A.Mohan and others v. Tmt.Kamalam Ammal and others A.Mohan and others v. Tmt.Kamalam Ammal and others A.Mohan and others v. Tmt.Kamalam Ammal and others, (2000)1 MLJ. 62 it has been held by a single Judge of this Court that not paying rents for three months and paying for only two months out of three months subsequently and the fact of not paying the rent regularly by the tenant to the landlord will amount to supine indifferent warranting to hold that the tenant has committed wilful default. 20. It has also been held by a single Judge of this Court in the case of S.Vanitha v. E.Kuppusamy S.Vanitha v. E.Kuppusamy S.Vanitha v. E.Kuppusamy , (1999)3 MLJ. 511 that it is the duty of the tenant to see that the rent does not fall in arrears and depositing the rent in the name of the tenant in the bank account of the tenant will not be proper and will amount to commission of wilful default in payment of rent. 21. 511 that it is the duty of the tenant to see that the rent does not fall in arrears and depositing the rent in the name of the tenant in the bank account of the tenant will not be proper and will amount to commission of wilful default in payment of rent. 21. If the decisions referred to above are taken into consideration in the light of the fact of nonpayment of rent by the revision petitioner as tenant without any cause, it is clear that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent not only before filing the eviction proceedings on the ground of wilful default but also subsequent to the filing of the eviction petition. In view of the said fact, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below that the revision petitioner has committed wilful default in payment of rent. 22. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner, Thiru Kailasam has contended that the Courts below have committed an error in ordering eviction on the ground of requirement of demised premises for own use and occupation of the respondent herein. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.Balasubramanian contends contra to it. 23. A perusal of the pleadings in the petition would disclose that the respondent herein has pleaded that he is residing in a rented premises owned by one Amarchand Kothari and there is a threat of eviction to the respondent herein warranting to go to the court to get the demised premises for his own use and occupation. The said fact has not been specifically denied in the counter filed by the respondent/revision petitioner even though there is a bald averment in the counter that the petitioner is not under the threat of any landlord. No reason was given as to why the revision petitioner has not specifically denied the fact that the respondent herein is not in occupation of the premises owned by Amarchand Kothari, if really he was not in occupation of the said premises under that landlord. 24. In the evidence of P.W.1, the respondent herein he has specifically stated that he is residing in door No.30, G.N.Chetty Road, Madras, that the said property belonged to Amarchand Kothari and his brothers and that they have filed a suit in C.S.No.742 of 1998 on the file of High Court, Madras for recovery of possession. 24. In the evidence of P.W.1, the respondent herein he has specifically stated that he is residing in door No.30, G.N.Chetty Road, Madras, that the said property belonged to Amarchand Kothari and his brothers and that they have filed a suit in C.S.No.742 of 1998 on the file of High Court, Madras for recovery of possession. Learned counsel for the the revision petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the admission made by the respondent herein as P.W.1 during cross-examination wherein the respondent herein has admitted that the building bearing door No.30, belonged to his younger brother Logapriya and the said property was given to his brother while his father gifted about 2 1/2 grounds of property to him also. The abovesaid admission would disclose that the said property belongs only to his younger Logapriya which seems to have been sold to Amarchand Kothari and his brothers who had filed a suit for possession on the file of this High Court as mentioned above. While the respondent herein has come forward with a specific case that he has no other property of his own except the demised property for his own use and occupation, there is no other acceptable evidence on the side of the revision petitioner to establish the existence of any other property to the respondent herein for occupation without resorting to eviction proceedings for the demised property against the revision petitioner. 25. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the respondent herein cannot initiate the eviction proceedings against the revision petitioner without impleading the other sharers of the demised property as petitioner. The abovesaid contention was raised even before the Rent Controller and the said contention of the revision petitioner as respondent, was negatived by the Rent Controller by relying on the decision reported in Easan and others v. Nagalakshmi Ammal Easan and others v. Nagalakshmi Ammal Easan and others v. Nagalakshmi Ammal , (1981)1 MLJ. 240 and the decision reported in (1976)4 S.C.C. 184 . The contention raised by the learned counsel Thiru Kailasam, on behalf of the respondent that the respondent herein cannot initiate the eviction proceedings against the revision petitioner herein without impleading the other sharers as party to the proceeding cannot also be sustained. 26. 240 and the decision reported in (1976)4 S.C.C. 184 . The contention raised by the learned counsel Thiru Kailasam, on behalf of the respondent that the respondent herein cannot initiate the eviction proceedings against the revision petitioner herein without impleading the other sharers as party to the proceeding cannot also be sustained. 26. The evidence available on record and the reasons assigned by the courts below in coming to the conclusion that the requirement of the demised premises for own use and occupation of the respondent herein is bona fide cannot be assailed for any reason. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein relied on the decision reported in Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works and others v. Rangaswamy Chettiar , A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1253 to bring to the notice of this Court as to the power this Court in revision proceedings. It has been held by the Apex Court as follows: “Some argument was advanced whether a finding as to the bona fide requirement of a landlord is or not a mixed question of fact and law. Reference was made to Madan Lal v. Sain Das Berry, (1971)2 S.C.C. 535 : A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 585 and Kamala Soni v. Rup Lal Mehra, A.I.R. 1969 N.S.C. 186 on the one hand and T.B.Sarvate v. Nemi Chand T.B.Sarvate v. Nemi Chand T.B.Sarvate v. Nemi Chand , 1966 M.P.L.J. 26 (S.C.) and Mattulal v. Radhe Lal , A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1596 on the other hand. We do not think it is necessary for the purposes of this case to enter into a discussion of this question. Merely to hold that a question is a mixed question of fact and law is not sufficient to warrant the exercise of revisional power. It must, however, be shown that there was a taint of such unreasonableness resulting in a miscarriage of justice. A concurrent finding, based on evidence, that the landlord did not bona fide require the premises for his own use and occupation is not in our view a finding which can be touched by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs. A concurrent finding, based on evidence, that the landlord did not bona fide require the premises for his own use and occupation is not in our view a finding which can be touched by the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Sec.25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the appellate Court is restored.” 27. The principles laid down in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case cited above, is applied to the circumstances of this case, wherein both courts below have concurrently found on evidence that the requirement of the demised premises for own use and occupation of the landlord, the respondent herein is bona fide, this Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings mentioned above. Therefore, there is no warranting circumstances to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below wherein it was held that the revision petitioner as tenant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and also the requirement of the demised premises for own use and occupation by the landlord is bona fide. The inconvenience to be caused to the landlord will be more than that of the inconvenience to be caused to the tenant, if eviction is not ordered on the ground of requirement of the demised premises for own use and occupation by the landlord as seen from the records. 28. A perusal of the records would disclose that the revision petitioner as tenant has resorted to all tactics of dragging the proceedings by filing petition after petition unsuccessfully before courts below and taking such matters unsuccessfully not only to the High Court repeatedly but also to the Apex Court. Several instance of filing such petitions have been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent herein by filing typed set of papers. 29. It is an unfortunate case wherein the landlord is put to all mental agony and torture by the tenant by adopting all such tactics without even paying the rent. Several instance of filing such petitions have been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent herein by filing typed set of papers. 29. It is an unfortunate case wherein the landlord is put to all mental agony and torture by the tenant by adopting all such tactics without even paying the rent. In view of such position, this Court is of opinion that it is not a fit case to grant even time to vacate the demised premises except the time already granted by the court below and therefore, no time is granted for vacating the demised premises by the tenant, the revision petitioner. Even though, it is a fit case for granting exemplary costs, with judicial restraint, the civil revision petition is dismissed with costs. 30. Learned counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of this Court about filing of a petition under Sec.47 of C.P.C. in the execution proceedings initiated by him for delivery of possession before the Rent Control Court before filing of the civil revision petition before this High Court. It has also been brought to the notice of the court that the revision petitioner, who has filed this civil revision petition before this Court thereafter by maneuvering not to number the said civil revision petition by this Court by non production of papers to be filed for numbering the civil revision petition, has filed the abovesaid petition under Sec.47 of C.P.C. to see that the execution petition is not proceeded with and at the same time, civil revision petition is also not numbered and listed before the court for admission. The same tactics can be seen from the records and such an attitude of the tenant cannot be encouraged. 31. Learned counsel for the respondent herein submits that appropriate orders may be passed with regard to the pending of Sec.47 petition before the Rent Controller. The same tactics can be seen from the records and such an attitude of the tenant cannot be encouraged. 31. Learned counsel for the respondent herein submits that appropriate orders may be passed with regard to the pending of Sec.47 petition before the Rent Controller. As the tenant/ revision petitioner is adopting all tactics in delaying the proceedings with a view not to deliver possession of the demised property to the landlord, this Court directs that the learned Rent Controller to take up all the petitions including Sec.47, C.P.C. petition pending before the Rent Controller/ Execution Court within one week and dispose of the said petition/ petitions within two weeks in accordance with law by issuing a notice to both parties to advance hearing, if nursery, and also pass appropriate orders in the execution petition immediately thereafter. If any party to the proceeding is not cooperative to have the disposal of the said petitions in the execution proceedings pending before the Rent Controller, learned Rent Controller is hereby directed to dispose of the matter ex parte within the stipulated time and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in the said execution petition.