Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the order dated 31.1.2012 passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in C.M.A.No.151 of 2008 in confirming the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Assistant Estate Manager, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai 600 006 in C.19/97/2008/AEM(M)/10568, this civil revision petition is filed. 2. A thumbnail sketch of the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus: "The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would echo the cride couer of his client to the effect that even though the revision petitioner retired from the Government Service as early as in the year 2008, he was constrained to occupy the quarters concerned and proceedings have been initiated as against him. Being aggrieved by the order of the Estate Officer, he preferred the C.M.A.No.151 of 2008, which was also dismissed." 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this civil revision petition has been focussed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on various grounds: 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that his client requires a weeks' time to vacate the premises and that he is not on merits. 5. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent, by producing the copy of the proceedings initiated by the Estate Officer, would develop his arguement that already possession was taken and this revision itself has become infructuous. The learned counsel also would explain that the premises was sealed. 6. No doubt, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the belongings of the petitioner are inside the premises and a sum of Rs.39,010/-(rupees thirty nine thousand and ten) is due payable as per law by the revision petitioner to the respondent and if the former could pay the said amount, he could, with the help of the Estate Officer, remove his belongings. 7. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent. Accordingly, time is granted till 24.7.2012 for the petitioner to take his belongings and that too, after discharging the dues as stated supra. 8. The learned counsel for he petitioner would state that the seal put on the premises be removed, so that the revision petitioner could enter into the possession of the premises and thereafter hand over delivery of possession to the respondent by 24.7.2012, for which the learned counsel for the respondent would disagree. 9. 8. The learned counsel for he petitioner would state that the seal put on the premises be removed, so that the revision petitioner could enter into the possession of the premises and thereafter hand over delivery of possession to the respondent by 24.7.2012, for which the learned counsel for the respondent would disagree. 9. I would like to point out that once possession has been legally taken by the respondent, the question of redelivery to the same revision petitioner would not arise. However, the petitioner is given the liberty to discharge the dues and take back his articles on or before 24.7.2012. 10. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.