Judgment :- This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 211. 2006 made in M.P.No: 741 of 2006 in RCA.No: 917 of 2006 passed by the learned VIII Judge, (Rent Control Appellate Authority) Court of Small Causes, Chennai against the order passed in M.P.No:86 of 2006 in E.P.No:587 of 2002 in RCOP No:986 of 2001 by the learned XII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, extending the interim stay of the proceedings in the execution proceedings in E.P.No.587 of 2002. 2. According to the revision petitioners/landlords, they are the absolute owners of the entire ground premises and building of the demised property. The first respondent firm is a tenant under them of the demised property on a monthly rent of 14,000/=. The second respondent is a partner in the first respondent firm. The third respondent is the third party to the proceedings who claims to be in lawful possession of 2000 sq.,ft., of the ground floor. He filed M.P.No.86 of 2006 in E.P.No.587 of 2002 under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC with a prayer to record and note his obstructions. 3. The main RCOP.No:986 of 2001 was filed by the revision petitioners for eviction of the first and second respondents f on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. M.P.No.96 of 2002 was filed for deposit of arrears of rent of Rs.6,02,000/= and after contest the said petition was also ordered. But without paying the rental arrears within the stipulated date, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred RCA.367/2002 in which stay was granted in MP.No:273 of 2002. Thereafter after hearing both sides the stay was vacated confirming the order of the Rent Controller to pay the rental arrears. But they did not pay. When this factum was brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, an order dated 10. 2002 was passed for eviction within two months in the main RCOP. .4. The other appeal in RCA.No.944 of 2002 was taken out by the tenant wherein and .stay was refused in M.P.No:691/2002 by order dated 22. 2003. Therefore, pursuant to the order dated 28. 2002 dismissing M.P.No:273 of 2002 in the earlier RCA.No.367 of 2002, Execution Petition 587 of 2002 was filed on 12. 2002 for executing the order of eviction as he did not vacate the demised property within two months as ordered. 2003. Therefore, pursuant to the order dated 28. 2002 dismissing M.P.No:273 of 2002 in the earlier RCA.No.367 of 2002, Execution Petition 587 of 2002 was filed on 12. 2002 for executing the order of eviction as he did not vacate the demised property within two months as ordered. A counter was filed in the E.P., and order of delivery was passed on 28. 2003. When delivery was sought to be effected, the respondents 1 and 2 resisted and therefore three petitions were filed to break open, to seek police aid and for removing the projector etc., were filed and the same were allowed on 9. 2003. 5. The arrears of rent increased to 14,30,000/= and the tenant did not pay a single pie. It is pertinent to note that the E.P., was filed after dismissal of the two RCA Nos:367 and 944 of 2002 for default. The M.P.Nos:228 and 229 of 2004 filed for restoration of the RCAs were also dismissed on 27. 2004. Again the respondents filed three applications and in MP.No:155 of 2005 sought for interim stay of the eviction ordered in the main RCOP pending disposal of MP.NO.151 of 2005 taken out for restoration of the MP.No:229 of 2004 in RCA.No.944 of 2002, wherein a conditional order was passed to deposit the entire rental arrears, which has also not been complied with by the respondents. 6. When the Execution Petition 587 of 2002 came up on 2. 2005 a memo was filed by the respondents stating that stay has been granted in MP.No:155 of 2005. Subsequently MP.Nos:150,151 and 155 of 2005 were dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 17. 2005 and MP.No:855 of 2005 seeking stay till furnishing of certified copies of the above dismissal order dated 17. 2005 was also dismissed on 28. 2005 after full contest. Stating all these facts a memo was filed in the Execution Petition and ultimately delivery was ordered to be effected on or before 21. 2006. .7. Pursuant to the above, when the revision petitioners proceeded to take steps to execute the warrant along with the Bailiff, the third respondent/obstructor resisted delivery claiming that he is a lessee of the respondents 1 and 2 to be in possession of 2000 sq.ft., since 1999. He filed MP.No:86 of 2006 in the E.P., under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC to record his obstructions. He filed MP.No:86 of 2006 in the E.P., under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC to record his obstructions. A counter was filed by the landlords and the respondents 1 and 2/tenants did not file any counter. The said MP was dismissed after full contest and the appellate authority also recorded a finding that the respondents 1 and 2 and the obstructor have colluded together and come forward with the said petition only to protract the proceedings. On the dismissal of the said application when the landlords filed a petition for police aid to execute the delivery, the respondents 1 and 2 filed RCA.No:917 of 2006 and obtained interim stay in MP.741 of 2006 and the stay has been extended subsequently on several dates. The said order of interim stay is under challenge in this revision. 8. This revision has been filed by the landlords challenging the very propriety of the proceedings viz., entertaining the appeal and obtaining stay by the respondents 1 and 2/tenants against the dismissal of the petition filed by the Obstructor/lessee, particularly in an advanced stage of execution proceedings and when no appeal has been filed by the said Obstructor. It is also alleged by the landlords that they have not been served with notice in the RCA.No.917 of 2006. The narration of events stated above chronologically would show that in a matter in which delivery was ordered by the executing court after full contest as early as on 28. 2003, the tenant is squatting on the property without paying a single rupee with a huge arrears of Rs.14,30,000/= as on 22. 2007. Even when notice through court as well as privately was ordered by this court in this revision as on 212. 2006 and duly served on 1. 2007 and counsel also entered appearance for the respondents/tenants, for nearly six hearings and stay was extended in most of the occasions, the counsel for the respondents did not appear. The conduct of the respondents in filing petitions after petitions resulted irreparable loss, hardship to the landlords and also it amounts to interference in the dispensation of justice. Without paying the rental arrears the respondents continued to file a barrage of petitions before the courts below with the only evil intention of delaying and protracting the matter with the obvious oblique motive of squatting on the demised property as long as possible. Without paying the rental arrears the respondents continued to file a barrage of petitions before the courts below with the only evil intention of delaying and protracting the matter with the obvious oblique motive of squatting on the demised property as long as possible. In the circumstances, the CRP is allowed setting aside the order passed in MP.NO.741 of 2006. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rent Control Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal RCA.No:917 of 2006 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Consequently, connected M.P., is closed. No costs.