Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/land lady against the order of the learned District Munsif, Ootacamund dated 2.11.2011 made in E.A.No.223 of 2011 in E.P.No.3 of 2011 in R.C.O.P. No.17 of 2009, whereby the learned District Munsif has allowed the application filed by the respondent/tenant under Rule 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 and recalled the warrant of possession issued in the execution proceedings. 2. For better appreciation, the impugned order dated 2.11.2011 is quoted hereinbelow:- "On 7.1.2010 in R.C.O.P. No.17/09 set ex parte order was passed. Subsequently, the Petitioner/Land lord filed execution petition in E.P.No.3/11. On 4.7.2011 counter filed. On 9.8.2011 petitioner's side enquiry heard. On 12.8.2011 respondent's side enquiry not taken. No representation. Orders reserved by 19.8.2011. On 19.8.2011 order pronounced. Subsequently, petitioner/tenant filed set aside petition in E.P.3/11. The same was numbered as 205/11 and the case is posted for notice of hearing and counter by 17.10.2011. 17.10.2011 declared holiday. Hence, this case is reposted to 18.10.2011. On that day notice of hearing not given. No representation till 5.30p.m. Hence this E.A. is dismissed. Now the petitioner/tenant filed u/S.47 C.P.C. petition and represented that they have filed an application to set aside the ex parte order of eviction passed by this Court dated 7.1.2010and I.A.181/11 and 182/11 u/S.5 of Limitation Act and Rule 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act are pending. The said applications were posted on 9.11.2011 for counter and further as per the Rule 12(3) for set aside an ex parte order and received by the Controller for the first time all execution proceedings in pursuance of the ex parte order shall be stayed until the disposed of the said applications and the said provision is mandatory. In the interest of justice this petition is allowed and recall the possession of warrant. On payment of batta". 3. The petitioner/land lady filed R.C.O.P. No.17 of 2009 under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Building's (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground of willful default and also for a decree of arrears of rent. 4. On payment of batta". 3. The petitioner/land lady filed R.C.O.P. No.17 of 2009 under Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Building's (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground of willful default and also for a decree of arrears of rent. 4. In the said case, notices were issued to the respondent/tenant, but even after the service of notice, no counter affidavit was filed by the respondent/tenant in spite of the fact that the case was adjourned on several occasions. Ultimately, by order dated 22.12.2009, the case was fixed for ex parte evidence on 7.1.2010. Even on 7.1.2010, the respondent/tenant did not appear, and ultimately, the petition was decreed ex parte and an ex parte decree for eviction was passed. The petitioner/land lady then filed an execution petition being E.P.No.3 of 2011 for recovery of possession. In the said execution case, notice was issued to the respondent/ tenant through court and post, which was served on 27.1.2011. The case was adjourned on various dates for filing counter by the respondent/ tenant viz., 1.3.2011, 24.3.2011 and 31.3.2011, but no counter was filed. On 7.4.2011, on the petition filed by the respondent/tenant, the case was adjourned to 18.4.2011, and thereafter, on 26.4.2011, 28.4.2011, 7.6.2011, 13.6.2011 and 29.6.2011, but no counter was filed by the respondent /tenant. However, on 4.7.2011, a counter was filed by the respondent/tenant. Thereafter, on several dates, the case was adjourned for enquiry, but there had been no representation from the side of the respondent/tenant, and ultimately, on 19.8.2011, the executing court ordered delivery of possession of the premises by 8.9.2011. On 8.9.2011, the delivery could not be effected as the door was locked. The executing court issued fresh warrant of delivery of possession. 5. At this stage, the respondent/tenant filed a petition on 26.9.2011 purporting to have been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the warrant of delivery of possession on the ground that he has filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. However, on the date of hearing of that petition, since there was no representation from the side of the respondent/tenant, the petition was dismissed. 6. The respondent/tenant then filed another petition for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was numbered as E.A.No.205 of 2011. The hearing in that petition was fixed on 18.10.2011. However, on the date of hearing of that petition, since there was no representation from the side of the respondent/tenant, the petition was dismissed. 6. The respondent/tenant then filed another petition for setting aside the ex parte decree, which was numbered as E.A.No.205 of 2011. The hearing in that petition was fixed on 18.10.2011. On that day, there was no representation till 5.30p.m. Hence, the said petition was also dismissed. 7. After the dismissal of the above stated two petitions, the respondent/tenant filed a fresh petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and represented that he has filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order of eviction along with a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, and hence, the ex parte decree shall be stayed in view of the provisions contained under Rule 12(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1973 (in Short 'Rules'). The executing court passed the impugned order, whereby the court allowed the petition and recalled the warrant of possession. Hence, this revision by the petitioner/land lady. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/landlady submitted that dispute being given full opportunity in the execution petition, the respondent/tenant did not turn up and ultimately, ex parte eviction order was passed on 7.1.2010. In Execution Petition No.3 of 2011 filed by the petitioner/land lady, the respondent/tenant received notice and entered appearance on 9.2.2011 and counter was filed on 4.7.2011, but the respondent/ tenant did not participate in the inquiry. Consequently, an order of delivery of possession was passed. The respondent has full notice and knowledge of the ex parte decree passed on 7.1.2011, but he did not file an application for setting aside the ex parte decree in time. The application so filed for setting aside the ex parte decree was also dismissed. In the aforesaid premises, the court below ought not to have passed the Order recalling the warrant of possession. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant submitted that Rule 12(3) of the Rules is mandatory, and therefore, the executing court has rightly stayed the execution proceeding. 10. In the aforesaid premises, the court below ought not to have passed the Order recalling the warrant of possession. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/tenant submitted that Rule 12(3) of the Rules is mandatory, and therefore, the executing court has rightly stayed the execution proceeding. 10. The question that falls for consideration in this petition is as to whether Rule 12(3) of the Rules is mandatory inasmuch as in every case where a petition for setting aside an ex parte decree is filed, the Rent Controller stays the delivery of possession. 11. For better appreciation, Rule 12 of the Rules is quoted hereinbelow:- "12. Procedure for the disposal of applications.- (1). When an application is presented under Rule 11, the Controller of the authorized officer, or an officer authorized by him as the case may be shall fix the date on which and the place at which the inquiry in respect of the application will be held and send notice thereof to the applicant or applicants and the respondent or respondents mentioned in the application and shall also send a copy of the application along with the notice to the respondent or respondents. (2) The Controller or the authorized officer or an officer authorized by him, as the case may be, shall give to the parties a reasonable opportunity to state their case. He shall also record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and witnesses, if any, examined on either side; and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence which may be produced by the parties, pass orders on the application. He shall also record a brief note of the evidence of the parties and witnesses, if any, examined on either side; and upon the evidence so recorded and after consideration of any documentary evidence which may be produced by the parties, pass orders on the application. (3) In any case in which an order is passed ex parte against a tenant or a landlord, or any order of dismissal for default is passed by the Controller, then the party affected may, within thirty days from the date of the order, or if he satisfies the Controller that he knew of the order only on a subsequent date, within thirty days from the date of such knowledge apply to the Controller by whom the ex parte order or the order of dismissal was passed, for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Controller that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the application was called on for hearing or that such default was occasioned due to circumstances beyond his control, the Controller shall make an order setting aside the ex parte order or the order of dismissal passed, as the case may be, upon such terms as to costs as the Controller thinks fit and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the application: Provided that no order shall be set aside on any such application as aforesaid unless notice thereof has been served on the opposite party: Provided further that in computing the period of thirty days for the purpose of this sub-rule, the time requisite for obtaining a certified copy of the order shall be excluded: Provided also that where an application for setting aside an ex parte order or an order of dismissal for default has been received under this sub-rule for the first time, all execution proceedings in pursuance of the ex parte order or the order of dismissal for default shall be stayed until the disposal of the application: Provided also that in respect of a second or subsequent application to set aside an ex parte order or an order of dismissal for default the Controller shall have discretion to grant or refuse stay." 12. From a reading of the aforesaid rule, it is manifest that sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 confers power upon the Rent Controller to set aside an ex parte order of eviction obtained by a landlord against the tenant, if the latter filed an application within 30 days from the date of knowledge of such ex parte order and satisfies the Rent Controller that he came to know about the order only on a subsequent date or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the application was called on for hearing, and the Rent Controller shall set aside an ex parte order on such terms as to costs as the Rent Controller thinks fit. The third proviso to Rule 12(3), which is relevant to the instant case, gives power to the Rent Controller to stay the execution proceedings if such an application for setting aside an ex parte order is filed before him. The fourth and the last proviso further provides that in a case where a second or subsequent application for setting aside the ex parte order is filed, then the Rent Controller shall have a discretion to grant or refuse stay of the execution proceedings. Hence, in my considered opinion, the Rent Controller is not empowered to stay the entire execution proceedings merely because of an application filed by the tenant for setting aside ex parte order unless the Rent Controller is satisfied that the application for setting aside the ex parte order is filed 30 days from the date of the order or from the date of the knowledge and he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the proceeding when it was called on for hearing. Further, in a case where a second or subsequent application is filed for setting aside an ex parte order, then the Rent Controller shall have the discretion either to stay or refuse to grant stay. In a nutshell, Rule 12(3) of the Rules and the proviso to the said rule is not mandatory inasmuch as the Rent Controller shall have to stay the execution proceedings merely because of filing of an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. 13. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as in what cases stay would be granted or refused. 13. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as in what cases stay would be granted or refused. The fundamental consideration will be that a decree has been obtained by a party and he should not be deprived of the fruits of that decree except for good reasons. It is well settled that discretionary power is to be exercised on sound judicial principles and not capriciously. The discretion should be exercised judicially and not mechanically, as a matter of course. The court should consider that the decree holder is not to be deprived of the fruits of his decree except for genuine reasons. 14. Applying the said principles, this Court has to consider the propriety of the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller in the instant case. In the said order, the Rent Controller proceeded on the assumption that under Rule 12(3), if an application for setting aside the ex parte decree is received for the first time, all execution proceedings in pursuance of the ex parte decree shall have to be stayed. Notwithstanding the fact that the Rent Controller noticed the previous conduct of the respondent/tenant as to how he was negligent in prosecuting the application for setting aside the ex parte decree and how he succeeded in dragging on the proceedings, even then, the Rent Controller on a misinterpretation of Rule 12(3), mechanically stayed execution proceedings. 15. As noticed above, in the rent control proceeding, in spite of several adjournments, the case was taken up for ex parte evidence on 7.1.2010, but even on that day the respondent/ tenant did not turn up, and ultimately, the petition was decreed ex parte, and an ex parte eviction order was also passed. Even in the execution proceeding initiated by the petitioner/land lady notice was served and he case was adjourned on various dates, but no counter was filed by the respondent/tenant. Finally, he filed his counter on 4.7.2011. Again he did not turn up for enquiry and the case was adjourned on several occasions. The Trial Court on 19.8.2011 ordered delivery of possession by 8.9.2011. As the door was locked on 8.9.2011, a fresh warrant of delivery of possession was ordered. The first petition filed by the respondent/tenant on 26.9.2011 for recalling the warrant of delivery of possession on the ground of pendency of setting aside application was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Trial Court on 19.8.2011 ordered delivery of possession by 8.9.2011. As the door was locked on 8.9.2011, a fresh warrant of delivery of possession was ordered. The first petition filed by the respondent/tenant on 26.9.2011 for recalling the warrant of delivery of possession on the ground of pendency of setting aside application was dismissed for non-prosecution. Then he filed his second petition for setting aside the ex parte decree being E. A.No.205 of 2011, which was also dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, he filed another petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aide the ex parte order of eviction along with a petition to condone delay. In the said petition he sought an order of interim stay of the ex parte decree on the strength of Rule 12(3) of the Rules, which was granted by the Court below. 16. After having gone through the entire facts of the case and the law discussed herein before, I am of the definite opinion that the Court below has committed serious error of law in passing a mechanical order of stay of the execution proceedings after entertaining the petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction conferred upon it under Rule 12(3) of the Rent Control Rules. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, this revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order of the Court below is set aside. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed.