Judgment : The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 1509 of 2007 has been filed against the order, dated 26.4.2007 made in E.P. No. 226 of 2007 in R.C.O.P. No. 311 of 2006, in and by which, the learned 11th Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai ordered delivery of possession of the petition premises. 2. The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P. No. 1510 of 2007 has been filed against the order, dated 27.4.2007 made in M.P.S.R. No. 8407 of 2007 in E.P. No. 226 of 2007 in R.C.O.P. No. 311 of 2006, in and by which, the 11th Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai rejected the petition filed for grant of stay of execution of the order of delivery pending disposal of the appeal before the Appellate Authority. 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the above Revision Petitions can be stated as under: 4. The petitioner is the tenant of the premises situated at Door No. 35, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 and the respondents are the landlords of the said premises. 5. The case of the petitioner is that he is the tenant of the petition premises right from 1957 onwards and a lease deed came to be registered on 29.12.1967 between the parties, wherein, the monthly rent payable by the petitioner towards rent is agreed at Rs. 1,000/- per month. The lease was for a period of 20 years and it is a renewable. While so, in the year 1973, the father of the respondents 1 and 2 herein, namely, S.J. Ispahani filed a suit in C.S. No. 40 of 1973 before this Court for the relief of declaration to declare that the lease agreement dated 29.12,1967 is not valid and not binding. By judgment, dated 28.2.1979, the said suit came to be dismissed. Aggrieved against the said judgment, an appeal in O.S.A. No. 111 of 1979 has been filed before this Court, which also came to be dismissed as abated by the Division Bench of this Court on 14.12.1992 since the appellant, namely, S.J. Ispahani was reported died. 6. After demise of said S.J. Ispahani, his wife Ms. Shahar Banu Begum alias Ms. S.J. Ispahani along with the respondents filed R.C.O.P. No. 2480 of 1988 before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent in the respect of the petition premises. 6. After demise of said S.J. Ispahani, his wife Ms. Shahar Banu Begum alias Ms. S.J. Ispahani along with the respondents filed R.C.O.P. No. 2480 of 1988 before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent in the respect of the petition premises. By order, dated 23.4.2004, the Rent Controller, while disposing the above said R.C.O.P. No. 2480 of 1988, fixed the fair rent at Rs. 31,591/- per month. Aggrieved against the said order of fixation of fair rent, the petitioner filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 627 of 2004. Being dissatisfied with the fixation of fair rent, the respondents/landlords also filed R.C.A. No. 716 of 2004. By common judgment, dated 26.4.2005, the Rent Control Appellate Authority, while disposing both, the appeals, enhanced the fair rent at Rs. 43,084/-. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has preferred revisions in C.R.P. Nos. 1657 and 1658 of 2006 before this Court. By order, dated 28.10.2005, while admitting the said C.R.Ps., this Court passed orders, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/-towards arrears of fair rent on or before 31.1.2006. Aggrieved, by the said order, the petitioner filed S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 25728 and 25729 of 2005 before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court on 3.1.2006, however, it is directed that the said C.R.Ps., to be disposed of expeditiously. According to the petitioner, since the C.R.P. Nos. 1657 and 1658 of 2005 have been pending disposal before this Court, the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority has not become final. 7. It is further case of the petitioner that when the respondents refused to extend the lease as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 1833 of 1991 before the VII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court for specific performance for extension of the lease period. The learned VII Asst. Judge, by judgment, dated 6.3.1997, dismissed the said suit. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 169 of 1998, which came to be allowed on 27.1.2003, granting extension of lease for 20 years. Judge, City Civil Court for specific performance for extension of the lease period. The learned VII Asst. Judge, by judgment, dated 6.3.1997, dismissed the said suit. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 169 of 1998, which came to be allowed on 27.1.2003, granting extension of lease for 20 years. Aggrieved against the said judgment, 27.1.2003, the respondents filed second appeal in S.A. No. 1644 of 2004 along with C.M.P. No. 12928 of 2004, wherein, this Court, by order, dated 18.2.2005 directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner pending disposal of the second appeal. It is stated that the said second appeal is pending for disposal till date. 8. The case of the respondents is that even after dismissal of the SLPs by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount and the petitioner has nor filed any stay petition along with C.R.Ps. in respect of the fixation of fair rent made by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. It is stated that since neither the arrears of rent were not deposited by the petitioner nor paying the rent which was fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the respondents moved R.C.O.P. No. 311 of 2006 for eviction of the petitioner from the petition premises on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. The petitioner contested the said R.C.O.P. By order, dated 26.2.2007, the Rent Controller, while disposing R.C.O.P. No. 311 of 2006, ordered eviction against the petitioner by granting two months from the date of the order. 9. Aggrieved against the order of eviction, dated 26.2.2007 made in R.C.O.P. No. 311 of 2006, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in R.C.A. No. 267 of 2007 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The petitioner has also filed M.P. No. 307 of 2007 along with R.C.A. 267 of 2007 for grant of interim stay of the order of eviction, pending disposal of the appeal. 10. In the said R.C.A. 267 of 2007, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority ordered notice to the respondents on 18.4.2007 and adjourned the matter on 24.4.2007 on which, both counsel were heard in regard to Stay Petition and it was posted for orders on 25.4.2007. According to the petitioner, on 25.4.2007, no orders were made by the learned Appellate Authority, but again adjourned the matter on 5.6.2007. 11. According to the petitioner, on 25.4.2007, no orders were made by the learned Appellate Authority, but again adjourned the matter on 5.6.2007. 11. In the mean time, the respondents filed E.P. No. 226 of 2007 in R.C.O.P. No. 311 of 2006 for execution of the eviction order against the petitioner. The Executing Court, by order, dated 26.4.2007 ordered delivery of possession through Court Bailiff. After coming to know about delivery of possession ordered by the Executing Court, immediately, the petitioner filed a petition in M.P.S.R. No. 8407 of 2007 in E.P. No. 226 of 2007 before the Executing Court praying for grant of interim stay of execution till the orders being passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. However, the Executing Court also refused to grant stay of execution on the ground that since there is no stay granted by the Appellate Authority. 12. Challenging the above said orders, the petitioner has come forward with these revision petitions. 13. Assailing the orders impugned in these revision petitions, Mr. T.U. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel has vehemently raised very many contentions, of which, main contentions, can be summarized as follows: i) that R.C.O.P. No. 311 of 2006 itself is not maintainable in view of the order, dated 8.2.2005 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 12928 of 2004 in S.A. No. 1644 of 2004 which specifically directed that the petitioner should not be dispossessed pending disposal of the second appeal and as such, the eviction ordered against the petitioner as well as the delivery of possession ordered by the Executing Court in E.P. No. 226 of 2007 is contrary to law and it is arbitrary and therefore, the order of delivery, dated 26.4.2007 in E.P. No. 226 of 2007 is liable to be set aside; ii) that the E.P. itself is not maintainable since it has been filed even before expiry of two months period granted by the Rent Controller for vacating and handing over the petition premises. The order of eviction was passed on 26.2.2007 and two months period was granted to vacate the premises, as such, only on 27.4.2007, the said period of two months will expire, however, the Execution Petition was filed on 26.4.2007 and it was numbered and ordered delivery of possession on the same day, that too without notice or opportunity to the petitioner; iii) that the Executing Court ought to have issued notice to the petitioner and verified whether any appeal has been filed and any stay petition was moved and ought to have kept the execution proceedings in abeyance till orders being passed in the stay petition by the Appellate Authority; iv) that the petitioner immediately moved a petition in MPSR No. 8407 of 2007 for grant of interim stay of delivery of possession and brought to the notice of the fact that an appeal in R.C.A. No. 267 of 2007 as against the order of eviction has been preferred along with M.P. No. 307 of 2007 for interim stay of eviction order, in which, the Rent Control Appellate heard both sides and adjourned the matter for orders on 25.6.2007. Therefore, when all these facts brought to the notice of the Executing Court, it ought to have considered the same and stayed the delivery of possession. Therefore, when all these facts brought to the notice of the Executing Court, it ought to have considered the same and stayed the delivery of possession. However, the Executing Court failed to exercise its discretionary power under Order 21Rule 26 C.P.C. and acted in a hasty manner and rejected the petition in M.P.S.R. 8407 of 2007 declining for grant of stay of delivery of possession till the disposal of the appeal; v) that the respondents have abused process of law by filing the Execution Petition and securing an order of delivery when admittedly, an appeal in R.C.A. No. 267 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner; vi) that pursuant to the order of delivery, the Court Bailiff effected delivery of possession by executing the warrant in a high handed fashion and without even obtaining an order for break open or police protection, that too in the absence of the petitioner and the respondents, joining hands with counsel for respondent by engaging about 50 to 60 rowdy elements, coming into 9 to 10 lorries, get the premises evicted forcibly and illegally and they had taken the law into their own hands and trespassed into the property and their henchmen armed with deadly weapons, ransacked the entire premises of the petitioners and the ground floor promises which was in possession of the licensees under the petitioner, was decamped with goods and articles worth more than crores of rupees and they were also forcibly dispossessed from the premises. Therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal and against basic principles of law; vii) that the above said havoc taken place at the instance of the respondent was established since it has been flashed in the leading Newspaper reports and photographs; viii) that when admittedly, as against the fixation of fair rent, C.R.P. Nos. 1657 and 1658 of 2006 have been pending and unless the fair rent has become final, the eviction which was ordered on the ground of willful default is not sustainable in law and as such, the E.P. itself is not maintainable and therefore, the impugned order of delivery is liable to be set aside. 14. With the above said contentions, the learned senior counsel prays for setting aside the orders impugned in these revision petitions and restore the possession of the petitioner by allowing these Revision Petitions. 15. 14. With the above said contentions, the learned senior counsel prays for setting aside the orders impugned in these revision petitions and restore the possession of the petitioner by allowing these Revision Petitions. 15. Insupport of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon (2007) 2 MLJ 630; Chellammal v. Kailasam (2007) 1 MLJ 635; 1996 (2) LW 849 ; 1969 SCJ 598; 1988(2) Crimes 107; 1996 (1) CTC 33 and 1996 (2) LW 856 . 16. Refuting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. T.R. Rajagopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents/landlords made his submissions, which in nutshell as follows: i) that the Revision Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are not maintainable; ii) that though this Court directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent at a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- towards arrears of rent, the petitioner neither deposited the same nor paid the rent which was fixed by the Rent Control Authority and committed willful default, which was clearly established by the respondents in R.C.O.P. No. 311 of 2006 and having considered the same, the Rent Controller has rightly ordered eviction and no fault can be found; iii) that though the petitioner filed an appeal in R.C.A. No. 267 of 2007, admittedly, there was no order of stay obtained by the petitioner in respect of the eviction proceedings, further merely filing an appeal would not operate as stay, as such, there is no bar for the Executing Court to proceed with the matter and hence the Executing Court has rightly ordered delivery of possession and Order 21Rule 22 C.P.C. specifically dispenses with the issuance of notice if the EP is filed within a period of 2 years from the date of the order; iii) that the respondents have filed the E.P. after expiry of two month time from the date of the order, dated 26.2.2007 and not before the expiry of the said period. The month reckoned according to British calendar as per Section 2(35) of the General Clauses Act, which is equal to 30 days or more than 30 days or less than 30 days. Therefore, when this is applied, the order of eviction is ordered on 26.2.2007, first month expires on 25.3.2007 and the second month expires on 24.4.2007. The month reckoned according to British calendar as per Section 2(35) of the General Clauses Act, which is equal to 30 days or more than 30 days or less than 30 days. Therefore, when this is applied, the order of eviction is ordered on 26.2.2007, first month expires on 25.3.2007 and the second month expires on 24.4.2007. Hence, the respondents have filed E.P. on 26.4.2007 which was rightly entertained by the Executing Court and ordered delivery of possession, which requires no interference; iv) that the interim injunction granted by this Court in C.M.P. No. 12928 of 2004 in S.A. No. 1644 of 2004 not to dispossess the petitioner till the disposal of the appeal, will have no impact inasmuch as the learned Judge who passed the injunction order, has subsequently clarified in contempt proceedings in Cont. Petn. No. 614 of 2007 by order, dated 13.8.2007 that the order will not preclude any party from taking any action in accordance with law to recover possession. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the said interim order in order to contend that the order of eviction is contrary to the interim injunction passed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 12928 of 2004; v) that pursuant to the delivery of possession, the Court Bailiff went to the premises on 27.4.2007, showed the warrant to one Akshay Kumar, who is the Manager of the petitioner and on going through the warrant, he handed over the vacant possession and the subtenants also vacated the premises having regard to the warrant issued by the Executing Court and thereafter, the Court Bailiff put the respondents into the possession and all this was done in accordance with law and therefore, no untoward incident was taken place. It is settled law that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported by producing the negatives. It is settled law that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported by producing the negatives. As such, the Newspaper reports cannot be relied upon as they cannot be admitted in evidence; vi) that the Executing Court has applied its mind in a proper perspective while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the stay petition by giving cogent reasons, which cannot be faulted with; vii) that the petitioner while questioning the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority by way of revision petitions, has not filed petition for grant of stay, thereby till disposal of the Revision Petitions, the petitioner have to pay the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, but failed to pay the same and committed default. Further, the petitioner has sub let the premises continuously to others and enriching himself at the cost of the respondents. Therefore, he deserves no sympathy and even on question of law, the Executing Court has not committed any illegalities while ordering delivery of possession against the petitioner, which does not require any interference of this Court. 17. With the above said submissions, the learned senior counsel sought for dismissal of the revision petitions. 18. Insupport of his submissions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1951 Cal 326 , AIR 1970 AP 234 , K. Cinnathambi Rowthar v. K. Shanmugam , 2000-3 LW 583; P. Rama Srinivasa Rao v. Dr. N. Ragavan (2006) 3 MLJ 625 : 2006 (2) CTC 43 ; 2000 (3) CTC 115 ; 1991(1) LW 244; 1996(3) LW 849 and 1996 (1) LW 278 . 19. Now the point to be considered is whether the orders impugned in these Revision Petitions are sustainable in lawe And whether the Executing Court has committed any illegalities while passing the impugned orderse 20. Before dealing with the contentions of the respective counsel, it is appropriate to mention the undisputed facts as follows: 21. The respondents filed R.C.O.P. No. 2480 of 1988 before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent which came to be allowed by order, dated 23.4.2004 fixing the fair rent at Rs. 31,591/- per month. Before dealing with the contentions of the respective counsel, it is appropriate to mention the undisputed facts as follows: 21. The respondents filed R.C.O.P. No. 2480 of 1988 before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent which came to be allowed by order, dated 23.4.2004 fixing the fair rent at Rs. 31,591/- per month. Aggrieved against the said order, dated 23.4.2004, two appeals had been preferred in R.C.A. Nos. 627 of 2004 and 716 of 2004 by the petitioner and respondents respectively. While disposing the above said appeals by common judgment, dated 26.4.2005, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority, enhanced the fair rent at Rs. 43,084/-. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred C.R.P. Nos. 1657 and 1658 of 2005, which came to be admitted by this Court on 28.10.2005 and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- being the arrears of rent. Again aggrieved against this order, the petitioner had preferred S.L.P. Nos. 25728 and 25729 of 2005 before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed on 3.1.2006. It is to be noted that even after dismissal of the SLPs, the petitioner has not chosen to deposit the arrears of the rent nor prepared to pay the fair rent that was fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority when admittedly, the petitioner has not preferred any petition for grant of stay of the order fixing the fair rent. In such circumstances, the respondents moved R.C.O.P. No. 311 of 2006 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent, which came to be allowed by order, dated 26.2.2007 by the Rent Controller. Challenging the said eviction order, the petitioner preferred R.C.A. No. 267 of 2007. It is to be noted that though the petitioner filed R.C.A. along with a petition for grant of stay, as on date, no order of interim stay was granted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. Since the petitioner has not vacated the premises even after the expiry of the time granted to the petitioner by the Rent Controller for vacating the premises, the respondents moved execution proceedings in E.P. No. 226 of 2007 for delivery of possession. By the order dated 26.4.2007 impugned in C.R.P. No. 1509 of 2007, the Executing Court ordered delivery of possession through the Court Bailiff. 22. By the order dated 26.4.2007 impugned in C.R.P. No. 1509 of 2007, the Executing Court ordered delivery of possession through the Court Bailiff. 22. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that EP itself is not maintainable since it was filed even before expiry of two months time granted by the Rent Controller for vacating the premises and in view of the order, dated 8.2.2005 passed by this Court in C.M.P. No. 12928 of 2004 in S.A. No. 1644 of 2004 which specifically directed that the petitioner should not be dispossessed pending disposal of the second appeal, while so, ordering eviction is contrary and arbitrary and therefore, the EP is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. The Rent Controller passed eviction order on 26.2.2007 granting two months time for vacating the premises, which according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, expires only on 26.4.2007, whereas, the E.P. was filed on the very same day, i. e. 26.4.2007, which in fact, has to be filed after 26.4.2007. I do not find any substance in the contention. Firstly, though this Court observed while dealing with C.M.P. 12928 of 2004 on 18.2.2005 that the petitioner should not be dispossessed by the respondents till the disposal of the Second Appeal, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the said order for all purpose and for his ova fault when admittedly, the eviction order came to be inflicted against him on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. In fact, while disposing A.S. No. 169 of 1998 on 27.1.2003, the learned Judge, VI Additional City Civil Court granted the relief of extension of lease period of 20 years but specifically denied the relief of injunction restraining the respondents from prosecuting the fair rent application. The Second Appeal in S.A. No. 1644 of 2004 was filed by the respondents herein having been aggrieved by the judgment in A.S. No. 169 of 1998 granting extension of lease for a period of 20 years. Further, it is significant to mention that subsequent to the order, dated 8.2.2005 in C.M.P. 12928 of 2004, this Court has specifically clarified in Contempt Proceedings in Cont.P. No. 614 of 2007, by order dated 614 of 2007 that the above said order would not preclude any party from taking any action in accordance with law to recover possession. Further, it is significant to mention that subsequent to the order, dated 8.2.2005 in C.M.P. 12928 of 2004, this Court has specifically clarified in Contempt Proceedings in Cont.P. No. 614 of 2007, by order dated 614 of 2007 that the above said order would not preclude any party from taking any action in accordance with law to recover possession. Secondly, as rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the period of two months would expire only on 24.4.2007 from the date of the order of the Rent Controller, i. e. on 26.2.2007 inasmuch as it is well settled law that the word ‘month‘ referred to in Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act has to be reckoned according to English Calendar which represents 30 days or more than 30 days or less than 30 days. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to a decision of this Court K. Cinnathambi Rowthar v. K. Shanmugam ( supra), wherein, the learned Judge of this Court, after elucidating all the decisions in this subject, has ultimately held as under in para 17: 17. In view of the Bench decision cited supra, I am of the view that the word ‘month‘ referred to in Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu (Lease and Rent Control) Act has to be calculated according to English Calendar month, whether it is 30 days or 31 days or even less than 30 days. 23. Therefore, when the word ‘month‘ is reckoned according to the English Calendar month it can be referred to 30 days or 31 days or even less than 30 days and it should not be restricted only either 30 days or 31 days alone. Therefore, applying the same, it can be held that the respondents after expiry of two months time, they moved the execution proceedings since the petitioner has not vacated the premises despite the time granted by the Rent Controller. 24. The next contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that though the Rent Control Appellate Authority has fixed the fair rent at Rs. 43,084/-per month, it has not become final, inasmuch as the petitioner has preferred C.R.P. Nos. 1657 and 1658 of 2005 challenging the fair rent. It is pointed out that though this Court directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent to a sum of Rs. 43,084/-per month, it has not become final, inasmuch as the petitioner has preferred C.R.P. Nos. 1657 and 1658 of 2005 challenging the fair rent. It is pointed out that though this Court directed the petitioner to deposit the arrears of rent to a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- while admitting the said revisions, there was no consequence that could flow from the said order adverse to the petitioner. Therefore, when the said order is not a conditional order and there would be no impact in case the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount, the eviction order based on such non-payment of fair rent is not sustainable in law and therefore, for execution of such eviction proceedings, the E.P. has been filed and without considering all these aspects, the Executing Court ordered the delivery of possession, which is not legally sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. I am unable to understand the reasoning of the learned senior counsel stating that the since the petitioner has preferred revision petitions challenging the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, the fair rent has not become final. Admittedly, the petitioner has not chosen to file CMP along with the said revision petitions for grant of stay of the order fixing the fair rent. Mere filing revision petitions would not serve the purpose that too without seeking for stay of the operation of the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority fixing the fair rent. Therefore, it is common knowledge that till the disposal of the revision petitions, the order, dated 26.4.2005 in R.C.A. No. 716 of 2004 passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority fixing the fair rent would operate and being a bona fide tenant, the petitioner ought to have paid the same. Therefore, the failure on part of the petitioner in payment of fair rent has resulted in eviction order against him, against which, the petitioner has preferred R.C.A. No. 267 of 2007 before the Rent Control Appellate Authority along with M.P. No. 307 of 2007 for grant of interim stay. In such circumstances, the issues regarding the eviction order are not necessary to delve upon in these revision petitions. In such circumstances, the issues regarding the eviction order are not necessary to delve upon in these revision petitions. Therefore, as already stated above, the main point to be decided is, whether the Executing Court is right in ordering the delivery of possession while entertaining the E.P.226 of 2006e And consequent order, dated 27.4.2007 rejecting the relief of stay of the order of delivery of possession, dated 26.4.2007e 25. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that as against the eviction order, dated 26.2.2007, the petitioner has already preferred R.C.A. No. 267 of 2007 along with M.P. No. 307 of 2007 for interim stay before the Rent Control Appellate Authority, wherein, the respondents have also entered appearance and contested the stay petition and after hearing on both sides on 24.4.2007, the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority has adjourned the matter for orders on 25.5.2007, but on the said date, no orders were pronounced and again, it was adjourned to 5.6.2007, while so, on 26.4.2007, the date on which, the E.P. was filed even before the expiry of two months time, the Executing Court after numbering it, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, has ordered delivery of possession on the same day, thereby it shows that the Executing Court has acted in a great hasty manner which is unheard of and shocks conscience and deprived of the legal rights of the petitioner in the appeal filed against the order of eviction. It is further contended by the learned senior counsel that immediately after passing the order of delivery of possession, on 27.4.2007, the petitioner has taken out a petition in M.P.S.R. No. 8407 of 2007 for grant of stay of delivery of possession by bringing the fact to the notice of the Executing Court that the orders were reserved in stay petition in M.P. No. 307 of 2007 in R.C.A. No. 267 of 2007 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, however, the learned Judge of the Executing Court, without considering the fact that the Rent Control Appellate Authority is seized of the matter, has rejected the petition arbitrarily without exercising the power and duty which is cast under Order 21Rule 26 of C.P.C., which envisages that the Executing Court can stay the execution of the decree for a reasonable time enabling the judgment Debtor to apply the appellate Court for stay of execution. Therefore, with these contentions, the learned senior counsel sought for setting aside the orders passed by the Executing Court since they are not legally sustainable. 26. It is not in dispute that as on date when the Executing Court ordered delivery of possession, i. e. on 26.4.2007, no order of stay in respect of eviction order, dated 26.2.2007 in R.C.O.P. No. 311 of 2006 by any appellate forum was in force and therefore, there is no impediment for the Executing Court to proceed with the execution proceedings when it is already held that there is no irregularity in entertaining the EP since it was filed after expiry of two months time granted to the petitioner. It is for the petitioner who has been inflicted with the eviction order, to take appropriate steps well in advance by expecting the consequences that would flow after expiry of the time granted for vacating the premises and if at all he is not willing to vacate the premises. Having waited till the last moment and rushing to the Executing Court at the eleventh hour by raising all technicalities that too without there being bona fide or genuine attempts on the part of the petitioner in tendering payment of either fair rent or arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority and by this Court, in my opinion, is nothing but to drag on the proceedings to the maximum extent, which cannot be entertained by the Court of law and in such circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence. Further, it is well settled law that if the execution petition is filed within two years after the date of the decree, there is no necessity for the executing Court to issue notice to the judgment debtor. Even Order 21Rule 22 C.P.C. contemplates dispensation of notice to the judgment-debtor if the execution petition is filed within two years. In the instant case, the respondents have moved the Execution Petition within two years and after the expiry of two months time granted by the Rent Controller to vacate the premises. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the Executing Court ought not to have ordered for delivery of possession, does not have any merit. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of this Court in Hazarath Imam Hussain Wakf rep. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel that without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the Executing Court ought not to have ordered for delivery of possession, does not have any merit. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of this Court in Hazarath Imam Hussain Wakf rep. by its Muthavalli v. Nayeema Adib (2006) 4 MLJ 190 , wherein, it has been categorically held that if E.P. is filed within two years after the date of the decree, there is no necessity for the executing Court to issue notice to the judgment debtor. 27. Applying the above ratio to the case on hand, no fault can be found in ordering delivery of possession by the Executing Court by dispensing the notice to the petitioner. 28. As regards the order, dated 27.4.2007 passed in M.P.S.R. No. 8407 of 2007 rejecting the grant of interim stay in respect of delivery of possession is concerned, the learned Judge after taking into consideration of the fact that as on the date of the order, there was no stay granted by the appellate authority though the petitioner moved the stay petition, has rejected to grant stay. I do not find any irregularity in the said order in order to interfere with the same inasmuch as it is already held that there is no impediment in proceeding with the execution proceedings by the Executing Court as there was no stay of in operation granted by the appellate forum in respect of eviction order. Therefore, with these reasons, I conclude that the orders impugned in these revision petitioners cannot be termed as arbitrary, unjust and illegal in order to interfere with the same. 29. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner next contended that on 27.4.2007, the Court Bailiff has executed the warrant in a high handed fashion and evicted the petitioner and subtenants forcefully joining hands with the advocate for the respondents by bringing rowdy elements in lorries. They entered the premises forcefully and disrupted the electricity supply, disconnected the telephone connections and removed the valuable properties, securities, cheque books, deposit receipts, etc., and they also forcefully evicted the subtenants who were in occupation of the ground floor. They entered the premises forcefully and disrupted the electricity supply, disconnected the telephone connections and removed the valuable properties, securities, cheque books, deposit receipts, etc., and they also forcefully evicted the subtenants who were in occupation of the ground floor. It is contended that the Court Bailiff has executed the Warrant even without obtaining the order for break open or police protection and in forceful manner with the help of the goondas who committed trespass and ransacked the place and thrown out the materials on road and by threatening the subtenants with dire consequences. Therefore, it is contended that such delivery of possession effected by the Court Bailiff is unjust and not legally sustainable in law. It is also stated that the petitioner has lodged the complaint about this untoward incident and illegal dispossession before D-1 Police Station and also intimated to the higher authorities. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel relied on the Newspaper articles and photos since the highhandedness and ransacked the premises through the rowdy elements and throwing out the materials on road while evicting the tenants from the premises was flashed in all leading newspapers. Based on these contentions, the learned senior counsel sought for setting aside the impugned orders and restore the possession in favour of the petitioner. I am of the opinion that all these contentions raised regarding illegal dispossession, which disputed facts, cannot be dealt with in theses revisions petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that no such untoward incident was taken place on 27.6.2007 when the Court Bailiff effected the warrant and the report of the Bailiff states that the possession was handed over on behalf of the tenant and also by the sub-tenants without any protest by removing all their materials. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore, inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu ( surpa), wherein, it has been held a newspaper is only hearsay evidence and it is not a document referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act by which an allegation of fact can be proved and the presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. It is further contended that the photographs can be admitted in evidence only when it is properly verified on oath by a person who is able to speak to its accuracy and it cannot be admitted in evidence without examining the person who took the photographs and the negatives of the same being produced on record or at whose instance the photographs were taken. To substantiate his contention, the learned, senior counsel relied upon the decision of this Court reported in P. Rama Srinivasa Rao v. Dr. N. Ragavan ( supra), wherein, it has been held that photographs should not be admitted in evidence without examining the person who took the photographs and the negatives of the same being produced on record or at whose instance the photographs were taken. 30. However, this Court is not inclined to delve upon all these disputed facts in these revision petitions since it is already held that there is no illegality or irregularity in ordering delivery of possession as well as rejecting the interim stay of delivery of possession, which were impugned in these revisions. 31. Before parting with this matter, I am inclined to place my views in the subject matter as follows: Relationship between landlord and tenant is very sensitive, depends upon good faith, understanding and contractual obligations, if any. 31. Before parting with this matter, I am inclined to place my views in the subject matter as follows: Relationship between landlord and tenant is very sensitive, depends upon good faith, understanding and contractual obligations, if any. A tenant should always be in a blinking memory that he is only a tenant and one day or other, he has to vacate the premises if the landlord seeks his eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of such premises as contemplated in the Act. At the same time, a landlord should not act as an authority over the tenant and go on imposing conditions to his whims and fancies and expect the tenant to dance to his tunes, even if they are illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. In order to make the tenant to bow to his unlawful demands, the landlord should not resort to illegal methods and cause unnecessary torment to the tenant. Even if the landlord wants only fair rent, though not the premises for his occupation, he can demand the tenant for the same, which should be reasonable and acceptable and co-relating to the market value of the property. No doubt, the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was enacted for the benefit of the tenants in order to protect the tenants from capricious and frivolous eviction by the unscrupulous landlords. However, it is pertinent to note that the Rent Control Act is a welfare legislation not entirely beneficial enactment for the tenant alone, but also for the benefit of landlord who acts bona fide and seeks eviction of the tenant who willfully default in payment of rents or sublet the property to the detriment of landlord or highhandedly cause damage to property. Therefore, the Act cannot be construed to protect the tenants in spite of deliberate defaults and misdeeds. As already stated, the rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable considerations have no place in such matters. 32. As already stated, the rent legislation is normally intended for the benefit of the tenants. At the same time, it is well settled that the benefits conferred on the tenants through the relevant statutes can be enjoyed only on the basis of strict compliance with the statutory provisions. Equitable considerations have no place in such matters. 32. It is very unfortunate that taking advantage of the protection provided under the Act, a tenant cannot expect that he can remain in the premises for years together by dragging on the proceedings to the maximum extent by paying very less or and unfair rent for the decades together, such as the petitioner did in the instant case. Right from entering into the lease in the year 1967, the petitioner has been paying only Rs. 1,000/- towards rent for the entire premises measuring about 2 grounds and 98 sq.ft which are admittedly situated in the heart of city and even at the time when the landlord moved the petition for fixation of fair rent before the Rent Controller, he has not come forward with a figure on his behalf suggesting the same as fair rent, but keep on agitating the litigation even going up to the Supreme Court when this Court directed him to pay the arrears of fair rent of Rs. 85,00,000/- on the basis of the fair rent fixed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, though against which, no interim stay was obtained. It is pertinent to note that even after fixation of the fair rent by the appellate authority, the petitioner has not chosen to pay the rent on that basis, which resulted in eviction against him on the ground of willful default in payment of rent. It is also the admitted fact that the petitioner has sublet the premises to other tenants and according to, the respondents, he was enriching himself by collecting the rents from his tenants while paying the rent of Rs. 1,000/-to the respondents. On going through the entire episode, it is enlightened that the petitioner has not acted in a bona fide manner, who deserves no indulgence from any Court of law. In such circumstances, the rights of the respondents/landlords should be protected against such defaulting tenant/petitioner. 33. For all the foregoing reasons, I find that there are no merits in these revisions petitions and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. In such circumstances, the rights of the respondents/landlords should be protected against such defaulting tenant/petitioner. 33. For all the foregoing reasons, I find that there are no merits in these revisions petitions and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Revision Petitions fail and they are dismissed devoid of merits. No costs.