Judgment : The revision petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S. No. 3155 of 1996. has filed this petition against the fair and decretal orders of the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore passed in A.S. No. 213 of 2001 dated 12. 2002 confirming the order of the learned Second Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore passed in O.S. No.3155 of 1996 dated 24. 2001 2. Initially the owner of the premises one Abbai Naidu filed an eviction petition against the petitioner. The said petition was ordered in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, an appeal against that order was filed. That appeal was also dismissed. As against the said order, the petitioner herein has not preferred any revision. Therefore, whatever the result of the R.C.A. has become final 3. It is seen that an eviction order was passed in R.C.O.P. on 22. 1990. The same order was confirmed in R.C.A. on 6. 1993. Thereafter, the respondent bank purchased the said property from the owner of the premises on 211. 1993. Thereafter, the subsequent purchaser filed an execution petition in E.P. No. 146 of 1994. 4. It is seen that the respondent took delivery of the possession on 211. 1995. Thereafter, the respondent filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 3155 of 1996 for damages covering the period from 211. 1993 to 211. 1995. 5. Thesaid suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.12,000 with 6% per annum. As against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 213 of 2001 before the principal District Judge, Coimbatore. The same was dismissed on 12. 2002. As against the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge the present revision petition has been filed. 6. When the revision petition is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently urge the following grounds: .(a) Even though the respondent purchased the said property from the original owner on 211. 1993 and took possession on 211. 1995, in view of non-intimation of the said fact to the petitioner, the relief sought for by the respondent for damages covering the said period is not sustainable in law .(b) For the recovery of damages for the said period the respondent has no right to claim the same from the petitioner. 1993 and took possession on 211. 1995, in view of non-intimation of the said fact to the petitioner, the relief sought for by the respondent for damages covering the said period is not sustainable in law .(b) For the recovery of damages for the said period the respondent has no right to claim the same from the petitioner. .(c) In the absence of landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, the respondent is not at all entitled to claim any damages from the petitioner covering the said period. .(d) In the absence of any assignment, the respondent cannot maintain any suit for the recovery of money. 7. Emphasizing the above stated grounds which are raised by the petitioner in the revision petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner advanced his arguments. 8. It is pointed out that even though the respondent bank purchased the said property from the original owner after the eviction proceedings were over between the landlord and the tenants, the subsequent purchaser the respondent did not inform the said fact to the petitioner. 9. Further the learned counsel would state that even in the execution of delivery, the said de-fact was effected only by force. The said has been established by the petitioner in the order pronounced by the First Additional district Munsif, Coimbatore in I.A. No. 626 of 1999. 10. In this regard, the learned counsel would submit that since the Court itself held that the respondent failed to submit the account of materials which was kept inside by the petitioner the execution Court passed an order directing the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.3240. Such being the situation, the respondent is not at all entitled to claim any damages from the petitioner. 11. Moreover, the respondent has not established the fact that on the basis of assignment of the rent control decrees, the respondent filed eviction proceedings. In these circumstances, the claim of the respondent claiming the damages from the petitioner covering the said period is not legally sustainable. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that once the order of eviction is passed by the Court and the same is confirmed in appeal and when there is no revision filed against the said appeal the petitioner, the order passed in R.C.A. becomes final 13. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that once the order of eviction is passed by the Court and the same is confirmed in appeal and when there is no revision filed against the said appeal the petitioner, the order passed in R.C.A. becomes final 13. It is pointed out that the respondent herein purchased the said property from the original owner on 211. 1993. It is pointed out that even though the eviction order was confirmed in R.C.A. No.95 of 1990 dated 6. 1995, the respondent has not claimed any damages from that period. 14. It is pointed out that the petitioner herein, neither paid any rent to the original owner nor deposited such rent into the Court to show his bona fide. 15. Further, it is stated that the petitioner with out any basis or any deposit of rent into the Court, the right to remain in the suit premises till he is evicted from the place through the Court of law on 211. 1993. In such circumstances, the respondent being the owner of the premises from 211. 1993 is illegal and authorized to claim the damages from the petitioner who is considered to be a trespasser. 16. To strengthen the argument, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions: (a) The Supreme Court in Smt. Chander Kali Bai v. Shri Jagdish Singh Thakur, (1978)1 R.C.J.17, has held as follows: “Whether the expression aforesaid borrowed from the English Law is quite apposite or not, but what is certain is that a person continuing in possession of the accommodation even after the termination of his contractual tenancy is a tenant within the meanings of the Act and on such termination his possession does not become wrongful, until and unless a decree for eviction is made. If he continues to be in possession even after the passing of the decree, he does so as a wrongful occupant of the accommodation.” .(b) This Court also in V.Ramasamy Iyer v. K.Ramakrishnayya, (1969)2 M.L.J.272. has held as follows: “After the order of eviction is passed against a tenant by the Rent Controller, the tenant continuing in possession is obviously in wrongful possession and any amount received by the landlord from him during such occupation would not tantamount to creation of a fresh relationship of landlord and tenant different from the earlier relationship which is the foundation of the action. Such a tenant cannot resist execution of the order of eviction on the ground that a fresh tenancy is created.” 17. In this regard, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that since the petitioner has no right to remain in the said property, as soon as the respondent purchased the same on 211. 1993, he has to be considered as a wrongful occupant. Therefore, the wrongful occupant has not denied the right of the respondent from claiming damages for the period covering from 211. 1993 to 211. 1995. 18. It is pertinent to refer the judgment rendered by the learned principal District Judge, while deciding the appeal. A perusal of the said judgment would reveal that the respondent the subsequent purchaser of the property from the original owner is legally entitled to recover the damages from the wrongful occupant. 19. On a careful consideration of the legal principles laid down in the judgment referred by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and also considering the circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity. I do not find any infirmities in the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court. 20. In the light of the discussions held above, this Court does note find any valid reason to allow the revision petition. In result, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs.