Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1973 and Act 1 of 1980 against the judgment and decree dated 19.06.2009 passed by the learned Appellate authority (the VII Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras) in R.C.A.No.958 of 2006 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2006 passed by the learned Rent Controller (the X Judge, Court of Small Causes at Madras) passed in R.C.O.P.No.2390 of 2005. 2. In the petition filed by the landlord, it is stated as follows:- 2.1. The petitioner / landlord is the absolute owner of the property in question. The said property was purchased from one Rajammal by a registered sale deed dated 05.07.1996. Originally, the respondent is a tenant under the said Rajammal, who is the vendor of the petitioner and the respondent was carrying on business under the name and style of “Chenbagambigal Coffee” in the petition premises. After the date of purchase, her vendor, the said Rajammal attorned the tenancy of the respondent herein in favour of the petitioner. 2.2. The petitioner further would submit that before the purchase of the petition premises, her vendor Rajammal filed a petition under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act of 1990 (for short the Act) in R.C.O.P.No.2645 of 1992 on the file of the XIV Small Causes Court, Chennai against the respondent. While so, the respondent filed R.C.O.P.No.1023 of 1997 before the XV Small Causes Court, Chennai, for the deposit of rent and the same was dismissed on 21.07.1998. In the meanwhile, a suit in O.S.No.7749 of 1997 came to be filed by the respondent against the petitioner and the said suit was decreed in favour of the respondent. 2.3. The petitioners husband is carrying on business in rented premises under the name of “Mangalam Gold Mart” at Chennai under Sri.Natwarlalji Trust, that she does not have any other property other than the petition premises and that the petition premises occupied by the respondent is required for carrying on her husbands business. Hence, eviction may be ordered. 3. In the counter filed by the respondent / tenant, it is alleged as follows:- 3.1. Hence, eviction may be ordered. 3. In the counter filed by the respondent / tenant, it is alleged as follows:- 3.1. The respondent / tenant states that he has been carrying on business in grinding coffee seeds and selling coffee powder in the petition premises for several decades. If the respondents husband shifts his business from the petition premises, it would definitely suffer severe loss. There is no bona fide in the plea made by the petitioner and that the petition is not maintainable under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. 4. The learned X Small Causes Court Judge, Chennai, has allowed the said R.C.O.P.No.2390 of 2005 by observing that the landlord required the demised premises bona fide for running the business by her husband and allowed the eviction petition filed by her granting two months time for delivery of possession. Hence, the tenant, namely, the present petitioners preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.958 of 2006 on the file of VII Court of Small Causes, Chennai. The appellate authority, confirming the revisional order passed by the Rent Controller, directed the petitioners to vacate the premises and hand over the demised premises within one month from the date of its order, dated 19.06.2009. Hence, the revision petitioners have filed this revision. 5. After the dismissal of the rent control petition, the landlord levied execution proceedings before the X Small Causes Court in E.P.No.448 of 2006 for delivery of the demised premises and the same was pending. Since the petitioners obtained stay before the appellate authority, the execution petition was kept pending with continuous endorsements to the effect that stay granted by VII Small Causes Court was in force. Execution Petition was kept adjourned to 31.07.2009. The civil revision petition was presented in this Court on 31.07.2009. The landlord is stated to have filed a caveat before this Court in Caveat No.2248 of 2009 on 25.06.2009 itself. It is stated by the petitioners that the papers pertaining to revision petition were attempted to be served upon the counsel for the landlord Mr.M.Chandrasekaran on 31.07.2009, but he refused to receive notice stating that he was not the Counsel for the landlord. 5.1. After the disposal of the appeal, the landlord filed an application before the executing Court to advance the hearing from 31.07.2009 to 29.07.2009 and the hearing was advanced to 29.07.2009 and delivery was ordered on that date. 5.1. After the disposal of the appeal, the landlord filed an application before the executing Court to advance the hearing from 31.07.2009 to 29.07.2009 and the hearing was advanced to 29.07.2009 and delivery was ordered on that date. The Court Bailiff proceeded to the demised premises and found the same locked. Hence, petitions for breaking open the door and police aid were filed. The executing Court passed orders to break open the premises and to deliver the demised premises with police aid. On 05.08.2009, the above said orders were executed and the property was delivered to the landlord. The articles and other things available inside the demised premises were removed and they were taken possession by the present petitioners on the same date. 5.2. Presently, the petitioners have come forward with a petition in C.M.P.No.2 of 2009 for relief to take appropriate action against the counsel for the respondent / landlady, Mr.M.Chandrasekaran and the husband of the respondent / landlady and deal with them. 5.3. In these circumstances, the following points have arisen for consideration in this revision petition:- (i) Whether the requirement of the landlady of the demised premises is bona fide and whether she is entitled for eviction as prayed for? (ii) Whether the prayer contained in C.M.P.No.2 of 2009 has to be granted and whether restitution of the property has to be effected in favour of the petitioner? 6.Point No:1 The demised premises belongs to the respondent which was purchased by her, on 05.07.1996, from one Rajammal. The father of the petitioners had already been a tenant under the vendor for a monthly rent of Rs.60/-. The extent of the premises is 112.5 Sq.feet. In a petition filed by the previous landlord in R.C.O.P.No.2645 of 1992, a fair rent was fixed for building at Rs.462/-per month. The respondents husband has been running a jewellery shop under the name and style of Mangalam Gold Mart, at Door No.162, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai-600 001, paying a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-. The said building measures 110 sq.ft. In a petition filed by the previous landlord in R.C.O.P.No.2645 of 1992, a fair rent was fixed for building at Rs.462/-per month. The respondents husband has been running a jewellery shop under the name and style of Mangalam Gold Mart, at Door No.162, N.S.C.Bose Road, Chennai-600 001, paying a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-. The said building measures 110 sq.ft. It is alleged in the petition that since the owner of the building required the building for demolishing and reconstruction, he asked the husband of the respondent therein to vacate and deliver vacant possession and the demised premises is required for the business for the respondents husband to run the jewellery shop in Triplicane; that both of them do not own any other non-residential building in Chennai city and that since it is needed for their personal occupation, eviction is sought for. 7. On the contrary, it is alleged by the petitioners that they are running a coffee grinding business in the scheduled building, that the requirement of the premises is not a bona fide one and that the petition filed under Section 10(3)(a)(i) is not maintainable. 8. It is not disputed that the husband of the respondent has been running a gold jewellery shop in N.S.C. Bose Road in a rented building. It is admitted by the petitioners that in Triplicane area, gold and silver jewellery shops are available, that presently the said business is not being run. There is no material on his part to show this. Ex.A.6 series would show that the jewellery shops are in existence in Triplicane. Ex.B.2 series are the letter given by the landlord of the husband of the respondent, by means of which, he was asked to pay rent. Ex.B.3 series are the rent receipts obtained by him for payment of rent. Ex.B.5 is also a rental receipt showing that Rs.4,000/- was paid by the respondents husband for the shop. 8.1. The above said particulars of oral evidence would be indicative of the fact that the husband of the respondent is running a gold jewellery shop in NSC Bose Road in the rented building and he required the scheduled premises to run his business. It is not also disputed that the respondent and her husband do not own any non-residential building in the Chennai city. 9. It is not also disputed that the respondent and her husband do not own any non-residential building in the Chennai city. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Mr.N.Thiyagaran would argue that the relative hardships of the parties have not been specifically pleaded in the eviction petition, which would constitute a ground for dismissal of the same. In support of his contention, he garners support from a decision of this Court reported in 1998 (1) L.W.67, Radhakrishnan Vs. Seethalakshmi, wherein a learned Judge of this Court has observed that the landlord should fail in this revision petition, because he has not at all pleaded in the eviction petition about the relative hardships that would be caused to the parties nor proved the fact that the relative hardship would be more on his part than on the part of the tenant. 10. It is true that comparative hardships of the parties have not been categorically pleaded in the eviction petition, but the oral evidence would go a long way to show that if the scheduled premises could not be obtained, the landlord would be put to great hardships. Indisputably, neither the respondent nor her husband owns any nonresidential building in Chennai city. It is admitted by the petitioners that jewellery shops are being run in Triplicane. Their father further running coffee grinding machine and they are also dealing with coffee powder business. Even if the tenants shift the business to anywhere else, there could not be much loss. If the respondent is not provided with her premises, she has to lose the monthly rent which her husband is paying to the landlord of the shop in NSC Bose Road. The study of the materials would show that the hardships which would be experienced by the landlord would outweigh those by the tenant. 11. The next limb of argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the revision petition has been filed by the landlord under Section 10(3)(a)(i) of the Act. But, it should have been filed under Section 10(3)a(iii) of the Act and such mis-quotation would disentitle the respondent from getting relief and that no necessary ingredients of the relevant provision has been explained in the eviction petition. 11.1. In support of his contention, he cites the following decisions of this Court reported in 1994(2)L.W.661, A.P.Swamy Vs. But, it should have been filed under Section 10(3)a(iii) of the Act and such mis-quotation would disentitle the respondent from getting relief and that no necessary ingredients of the relevant provision has been explained in the eviction petition. 11.1. In support of his contention, he cites the following decisions of this Court reported in 1994(2)L.W.661, A.P.Swamy Vs. V.Kunjithapadam and 1995(2)MLJ 27, M/s.Nataraja Trading Company rep.by its partners and others V. K.Manohar. 12. Per contra, it is well settled principle that misquotation of the provision of law would not disentitle the party from claiming relief. In 1999(3) MLJ 330, Mohammed Iqubal V. Padmanabhan, this Court has held that it is well settled law that on account of misquoting the provision of law, the party does not become disentitle to get the relief sought for provided he is otherwise entitled for the same on facts and on proof. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Senthil Nathan would submit that in the revisional powers the High Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact unless there is perversity in the appreciation of evidence under Section 25 of the Act. He cites a decision reported in 1997 (II) CTC 631 , S.M.Mohamed Meera Sha Vs. E.Hyder Ali for this proposition, in which the decision in 1996 (1) SCC 25 , Dev Kumar (Died) through Lrs Vs. Swaran Lata (Smt) and others, has been followed. The operative portion of the judgment goes thus:- “12. In the decision in Dev Kumar (Died) through Lrs. v. Swaran Lata (Smt) and others, 1996(1)SCC25 it is held as follows:- "The jurisdiction of the High Court under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, would entitle the Court to examine the legality and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate Authority and is thus much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it has to be exercised subject to the well-known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. Unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority or unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come to the High Court will not interfere with the same". 14. In 1967 (2) MLJ 286 , R.Durairaju Vs. Unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of appreciation of evidence by the Appellate Authority or unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come to the High Court will not interfere with the same". 14. In 1967 (2) MLJ 286 , R.Durairaju Vs. S.Palaniappa Gounder, it is held that if perverse findings are pointed out, it would fall within the ambit of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act. But, this Court does not find any perversity in the findings recorded by the authorities below. Both the fora have recorded their observations as to the bona fide requirement of the landlord in unequivocal terms. Hence, there is no necessity to vary them in lack of perversity. 15. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent is in bona fide requirement of the demised premises for her husbands jewellery business at Triplicane and the hardships which would be met by the respondents husband would outweigh the same experienced by the petitioner. Necessary ingredients under Section 10(3)a(iii) have been established in this case. The orders passed by both the authorities have to be necessarily confirmed and they are accordingly confirmed. The first point is answered in affirmative. Point No:2 16. In the affidavit in M.P.No.2 of 2009 filed by the petitioner, it is stated as follows:- 16.1. After disposal of RCOP No.2390 of 2005, the respondent filed EP.No.448 of 2006, which was kept pending, due to the pendency of RCA No.958 of 2006 and in view of stay order made in the said RCA the said execution petition was adjourned for the last three years; while so, certified copy of the fair and decretal order dated 19.06.2009 was furnished to the petitioners on 17.07.2009; thereafter, they prepared the Revision Petition. The respondent/landlady had filed Caveat No.2248 of 2009, dated 25.06.2009. The petitioners have filed the above CRP on 31.07.2006 along with M.P.No.1 of 2009 to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the fair and decretal order dated 25.07.2006 made in RCOP No.2390 of 2005. The said Miscellaneous Petition was ordered on 05.08.2009; they have also furnished the copy of the CRP to the learned counsel appearing for the Caveator/respondent on 03.08.2009. 16.2. The said Miscellaneous Petition was ordered on 05.08.2009; they have also furnished the copy of the CRP to the learned counsel appearing for the Caveator/respondent on 03.08.2009. 16.2. On 05.08.2009 at about 1.40 a.m., when the second petitioner Jayaprakash went to his shop, he found all the articles inside the shop had been lifted and thrown in the street, the front doors of the shop had been broken open; the husband of the respondent/landlady along with certain rowdy elements were present before his shop and threatened him with dire consequences. 16.3. The petitioners went to Jambazaar police station to give complaint, but the police had refused to take their complaint; thereafter, they went to the Small Causes Court, Chennai and found that after disposal of RCA No.958 of 2006 on 19.06.2009, the respondent/decree holder/defendant had filed a fresh execution petition bearing SR No.10093 of 2009 on 28.07.2009. The said execution petition was not numbered and RCOP records had been called for. The respondent/decree holder had filed an execution petition in E.P.No.448 of 2006 in RCOP No.2390 of 2005 before the X Small Causes Court at Chennai; in view of pendency of RCA No.958 of 2006, the said execution petition had been stayed and the same was called every month and adjourned. The respondent/decree holder filed MP No.165 of 2009 to advance the hearing of the said EP No.448 of 2006; the said MP was allowed without issuing notice to the petitioners; on further verification, the petitioners found that on 29.07.2009 delivery was ordered and the husband of the landlady had accompanied the Bailiff. 16.4. The Bailiff, with the help of rowdy elements, had broken the locks of the shop and threw away the articles on the street; one Ramesh, Electrician employed by the husband of the landlady had signed as a witness along with another person viz., A.T.Sathyanarayanan, a friend of the husband of the landlady, who was not at all present on 05.08.2009 at the shop. The respondent/landlady had obtained orders for advancing the hearing of execution petition to break open the lock with police aid without giving notice to the petitioners and without any justifiable reason, suppressing this CRP No.2314 of 2009 pending before this Court and hence, it is prayed for allowing the petition. 17. The respondent/landlady had obtained orders for advancing the hearing of execution petition to break open the lock with police aid without giving notice to the petitioners and without any justifiable reason, suppressing this CRP No.2314 of 2009 pending before this Court and hence, it is prayed for allowing the petition. 17. The respondent has stated in her counter affidavit that after the expiry of the period mentioned in the eviction order, she took out an Execution Petition in EP No.448 of 2006 on 26.09.2006 before the learned X Small Causes Court, Chennai and the first petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed in RCOP No.2390 of 2005 dated 25.07.2006 preferred RCA No.958 of 2006 and pending the said RCA, the first petitioner died and the second and third petitioners were impleaded as parties and finally the above appeal was dismissed on 19.06.2009 on merits by the appellate authority confirming the eviction order. However, EP No.448 of 2006 was adjourned for the reasons stated from time to time till 31.07.2006. 18. The respondent/landlady has further stated that after the expiry of one month from the date of the order passed in RCA No.958 of 2006 only, she filed a fresh Execution Petition in S.R.No.10093 of 2009, dated 28.07.2009 for delivery of possession. However, the said EP was returned for the reason that previous EP No.448 of 2006 was pending. Hence, there was no other option except to execute and enforce EP No.448 of 2006. She filed a petition in MP.No.165 of 2009 in EP No.448 of 2006. She filed a petition in MP.No.165 of 2009 in execution petition No.448 of 2006 to advance hearing. After considering the reasons stated therein, the learned X Small Causes Judge, passed an order for delivery of possession by order dated 29.07.2009. 18.1. It is further stated that after obtaining the order, she authorised her husband to accompany with Bailiff to execute the said warrant for delivery of possession. However, they found the door locked. Thereafter, the Bailiff submitted his report on 03.08.2009 to the learned Judge seeking necessary permission for breaking open, police aid and also to remove the machineries. Therefore, the respondent/landlady filed M.P.Nos.174 to 176 of 2009, for break open, police aid and removal of two machines (coffee grinding machines). After perusing the report of the Bailiff and having been satisfied with the report, the learned Judge, allowed the above said Miscellaneous Petitions. Therefore, the respondent/landlady filed M.P.Nos.174 to 176 of 2009, for break open, police aid and removal of two machines (coffee grinding machines). After perusing the report of the Bailiff and having been satisfied with the report, the learned Judge, allowed the above said Miscellaneous Petitions. Thereafter, on 05.08.2009, once again the Bailiff and her husband visited the petition premises at about 11.00 a.m., broke open the lock and removed the machineries and other articles lying in the petition premises and kept outside with the help of one Ramesh, Electrician and A.T.Sathyanarayanan and also took out an inventory of the articles mentioning the approximate value in the presence of the respectable witness and further took photographs of the condition of the petition premises and also the belongings of the petitioners kept outside. 18.2. The Bailiff in his report clearly stated that back portion of the petition premises wall was in a dilapidated condition and all the machines were in a scrap condition. It is also stated that the Bailiff completed the entire formalities and that the Bailiff duly informed the petitioners that only under due process of law, the court warrant was executed and further directed them to take back their articles, which are lying in the hands of her husband. Thereafter, the second petitioner called the police and the police also verified the fact with the Court Bailiff and went away advising the second petitioner not to cause any disturbance to the public. 18.3. She had taken possession of the petition premises only under the process of law in the manner aforesaid through Court Bailiff and she is in lawful physical possession and occupation. Once they are dispossessed, there is a termination of all proceedings. The order of dispossession pursuant to which they are dispossessed is not valid in any subsequent order either in appeal or in revision or in any collateral proceedings. It is also stated that this Court while exercising the power of Revision cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the court below unless it is shown that the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority are perverse in nature and against the evidence already on record. 19. It is also stated that this Court while exercising the power of Revision cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of the court below unless it is shown that the findings of the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority are perverse in nature and against the evidence already on record. 19. The third petitioner himself has admitted in his affidavit that he is paying a monthly rent of Rs.60/- to the petition premises and he also deposited the same for the period from August 2007 to August 2008 in one lump sum and further, he categorically admitted that the respondents husband is suffering loss and finding it difficult to pay the rent of Rs.2,000/- and therefore, desires to shift his busniess to Triplicane. 20. On 07.08.2009, when the above civil revision petition came up for admission, her counsel filed a detailed memo along with a photocopy of inventory dated 05.08.2009 with the acknowledgment of the second petitioner. However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, who appeared for the petitioners took time to 12.08.2009 and once again took adjournment to 14.08.2008 and it was further adjourned to 18.08.2009. Only on 18.08.2009, the petitioners filed CMP No.2 of 2009 in CRP No.2314 of 2009 and filed additional typed set of papers raising certain untenable allegations against the Counsel for the petitioners. This could easily illustrate the attitude of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is further stated that the second CMP is nothing but only an after thought of the counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners took out a new baseless and groundless allegations only on 18.08.2009. Even on 18.08.2009, the petitioners counsel took time to argue in the main CRP to 27.08.2009, even though the respondents counsel was ready to argue. For the above said facts and circumstances of the case, she prayed for dismissal of the petition. 21. It is the bottom line contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that when E.P.No.448 of 2000 is pending for a long time, even though the landlord filed an application to advance the hearing on 29.07.2009, the executing Court should have issued notice to the petitioners and to their shock and surprise, the husband of the respondent dispossessed them with the aid of police. 22. 22. On the contrary, it is argued on behalf of the respondent that there is no need for giving notice to the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the allegation to the effect that the petitioners side attempted to supply papers on advocate for the respondent on 31.07.2009 was not intimated to this Court by filing memo or affidavit, that only on 18.08.2009, after 19 days, it was informed to the Court and that by adopting due procedure, possession was taken by the landlord, that it is evident from the endorsement made on the inventory prepared by the Court Amin, made by the petitioner himself in the presence of the two witnesses, who are none other than his sisters, which would show that the removed articles from the shop were verified and taken possession and that there is no foul play on the part of the landlord. 23. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Mr.N.Thiagarajan would cite the following authorities and argue that the abuse of process of Court or playing fraud on the Court, has to be dealt with in a serious manner. They are as follows:- (i) AIR 1995 Madras 42, Registrar M.S.University Vs. Suhura Beevi Educational Trust. (ii) AIR 2000 Madras 261, V.G.Loganathan Vs.M.Balakrishnan (iii) 2004 AIHC 3017, Secy.to.Govt, Revenue Dept,Secretariat, Hyderabad Vs.Mudiki Bhimesh Nanda. (iv) (1994) 1 SCC 1 , S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath 24. It is stated by the petitioners side that though the learned counsel for the respondent had knowledge about the filing of the civil revision petition, he evaded service of papers on him, but he did not mention before the Court about the service of civil revision petition papers on him before the Court and such suppression would amount to playing fraud on Court. But the attempt to serve notice upon him has been categorically denied in the counter. 24.1. In V.G.Loganathans case cited supra, the respondent had obtained an ex parte decree from the Court and the revision petitioner in that case was dispossessed on the day of Deepavali due to collusive order. S.S.Subramani.J, came down heavily on the respondent therein and his Advocate by observing that they have played fraud upon the Court, that they have suppressed the real facts before the Court by obtaining undue advantage by filing collusive suit and forcibly dispossessed the petitioner therein who was admittedly in the possession of the petition premises. S.S.Subramani.J, came down heavily on the respondent therein and his Advocate by observing that they have played fraud upon the Court, that they have suppressed the real facts before the Court by obtaining undue advantage by filing collusive suit and forcibly dispossessed the petitioner therein who was admittedly in the possession of the petition premises. It is also observed that the Tribunal Judge had not applied his mind which has resulted in the unlawful dispossession of a third person. Finally, the learned Judge has imposed costs upon the respondent and Commissioner of Police, Chennai was directed to implement the order of the Court. 24.2. But the facts in this case are otherwise. Execution Petition was already filed after the passing of eviction order by the Rent Controller and the same was kept pending, in view of the stay granted by the appellate authority. During the pendency of the said execution petition, the landlord filed another execution petition in S.R.No.10023 of 2009 on 28.07.2009. But the said execution petition was returned by the Presiding Officer stating that already an execution petition was pending. 24.3. Both sides have cited a decision of mine reported in 2009 (3) CLT 100, P.Periasamy and others Vs. A.Ramasamy Gounder, wherein I have followed a decision of the Supreme Court, which portion is extracted below:- “12. In (1996) 6 SCC 660 [United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar and Others] the Apex Court has held that procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause; that there is sufficient power in the courts, under the Code of Civil Procedure, to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a just case and that as far as possible a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of procedural irregularity which is curable. “ 25. In the same decision, I have also made observations that it could be stated that by an error committed by the Court by inadvertence, the party who has been consciously pursuing the suit proceedings should not suffer. 26. In the afore-said decision, it is observed that when no injustice is caused to a party and when the matter does not go to the root, the non-observance of procedure can be tolerated. 26. In the afore-said decision, it is observed that when no injustice is caused to a party and when the matter does not go to the root, the non-observance of procedure can be tolerated. The main thrust of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that even though the learned counsel Mr.M.Chandrasekaran had got the knowledge of the filing of civil revision petition on 31.07.2009 itself, he did not mention about such filing before the executing Court and thereby, he is guilty of fraud. In order to highlight his contention he relied upon a judgment reported in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidus case, in which it is held that a litigant who approaches the Court is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. 27. The learned counsel for the respondent denies attempt to service notice upon him as regards civil revision petition presented before this Court. 28. In the counter filed by the landlord, it is stated that only on 18.08.2009 the knowledge of dispossession on the part of the petitioners was reported before the Court. The civil revision petition came up before the Court on 07.08.2009 after being filed and it was adjourned to 12.08.2009 and thereafter, to 14.08.2009 and then to 18.08.2009. On that date, it was adjourned to 27.08.2009. The learned counsel for the respondent would argue on the basis of the allegation in the counter that only on 18.08.2009 the dispossession was intimated to the Court by filing this Civil Miscellaneous Petition along with affidavit of the petitioner after 19 days and that the respondent had obtained eviction only under due process of law and neither the Counsel nor the husband of the respondent had played any fraud upon the Court. 28.1. Excepting the allegations in the affidavit, there is no material to show that on 31.07.2009, the petitioners Counsel met Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, Counsel for the respondent, and furnished copies of the Civil Revision Petition papers which were refused by him stating that he was not the Counsel for the landlady. 28.1. Excepting the allegations in the affidavit, there is no material to show that on 31.07.2009, the petitioners Counsel met Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, Counsel for the respondent, and furnished copies of the Civil Revision Petition papers which were refused by him stating that he was not the Counsel for the landlady. Hence, under such circumstances, it could not be held that the counsel M.Chandrasekaran had the knowledge of filing the Civil Revision Petition and failed to intimate before the executing Court about the pendency of the same. Further, no stay had been obtained by the petitioners to stall the execution proceedings in Execution Petition No.448 of 2006. In the absence of any stay from the superior Court, there is no impediment for the Court below to proceed with the case. The pendency of civil revision petition before this Court did not operate as stay for the further proceedings in the execution petition. 28.2. It is vehemently contended by the petitioners side that on 29.07.2009, no notice was given to them in the petition to advance the hearing in the execution petition and without hearing them and affording opportunity to them, the executing Court passed an order of delivery by means of which they are much affected. It is to be seen whether proper procedure was adopted by the Presiding Officer of the executing Court. In this regard, it is also to be borne in mind that this Court has concluded that the petitioner cannot succeed in the civil revision petition, even if the delivery was not effected in the purusance of the order dated 29.07.2009. After the disposal of the civil revision petition, the landlord would have been given delivery. Inter alia, we have to see that the petitioner himself (R.Jayaprakash) was present at the time of removing the machineries and articles kept in the demised premises. An inventory was taken showing 11 items which were present inside the premises. The husband of the respondent got possession of those articles on 05.08.2009 and on the same day, the petitioner (R.Jayaprakash) himself has obtained possession of those articles in the presence of witnesses, namely, one Pushpalatha and Leelavathy, his sisters. Petitioner R.Jayaprakash and his sisters have singed on the reverse of the inventory report. 29. The following is the endorsement made by the petitioner on the inventory prepared:- ””**TAMIL** “Sd/-R.JAYAPRAKASH 05.08.2009 TAMIL:- 1. R.Pushpalatha TAMIL 2. D.Leelavathi TAMIL 29.1. Petitioner R.Jayaprakash and his sisters have singed on the reverse of the inventory report. 29. The following is the endorsement made by the petitioner on the inventory prepared:- ””**TAMIL** “Sd/-R.JAYAPRAKASH 05.08.2009 TAMIL:- 1. R.Pushpalatha TAMIL 2. D.Leelavathi TAMIL 29.1. Below the list of articles, it has been mentioned as “all items are scraps”. The above said endorsement would go to show that the petitioners verified the articles including the Coffee Grinding Machine and took possession without any murmur. It is also to be noted that he has not mentioned anything in the endorsement that the machineries were in the damaged condition. 30. Adverting to the non-issuance of notice on the petitioners side in the execution proceedings, the procedure and the practice adopted in the executing Court has to be looked into. If the Presiding Officer of the executing Court had violated the procedure or the usual practice of the Court, then necessary proceedings have to be initiated against him and the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, Chennai, would be the competent authority to enquire into the matter. There is no scope for order of restitution of the demised premises, since the petitioners have not succeeded in the civil revision petition. 31. As stated above, there is no material to conclude that the respondents Counsel refused to take notice as to the papers in civil revision petition. Even though the respondent Advocate had filed an application to advance the hearing, it is incumbent upon the Presiding Officer of the executing Court to see whether notice has to be given to either side for which the procedure and prevailing practice have to be ascertained. In the present petition, it has been prayed that appropriate action may be taken against the Counsel for the respondent and husband of the respondent. 31.1. In view of the above said findings, there could be no room to direct any action against the above two individuals. Though the landlord was anxious to get delivery of the property, it is the bounden duty of the executing Court to see whether the tenant has to be heard. Hence, this miscellaneous petition suffers dismissal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. Though the landlord was anxious to get delivery of the property, it is the bounden duty of the executing Court to see whether the tenant has to be heard. Hence, this miscellaneous petition suffers dismissal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 31.2 However, there will be a direction to the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, to hold enquiry as to whether the then Judge, X Small Causes Court, Chennai who passed orders on 29.07.2009 in E.P.No.448 of 2006, adopted the procedure and usual practice and to submit a report to the High Court. 32. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs. M.P.No.2 of 2009 is also dismissed. The learned Chief Judge Small Causes is directed to hold enquiry as to whether the then Judge, X Small Causes Court, Chennai who passed orders on 29.07.2009 in E.P.No.448 of 2006, adopted the procedure and usual practice and to submit the report to the High Court. He has to afford ample opportunities to the individuals who participate in the enquiry before him.