Judgment L. Narasimha Reddy, J. This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 23.12.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Forum’), in E.A. No. 38 of 2013 in C.C. No. 1026 of 2007. The brief facts that gave rise to the filing of the writ petition are as under: The 3rd respondent is said to be the owner of premises bearing No.5-8-29, Fateh Sultan Lane Nampally, Hyderabad. The property is said to have been given to the 4th respondent for development, way back in the year 1999. Thereafter, two supplementary agreements are said to have been entered into on 01.06.2003. The agreement inter alia provided for the completion of construction within 24 months from the date of supplementary agreement, and in default, the 4th respondent shall pay to the 3rd respondent a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month for alternative accommodation and Rs.10,000/- per month towards refundable amount without interest. Complaining that there is deficiency of service on the part of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent filed C.C.No.1026 of 2007 before the Forum. After contest by the parties, the Forum passed a detailed order, dated 09.12.2009, issuing various directions. One of it is that the 3rd respondent shall refund a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from out of Rs.12,00,000/- paid to her towards Caution Deposit on or before 28.12.2009 and on receipt of such amount, the 4th respondent shall complete the left over part of construction. Other ancillary reliefs were also granted. Aggrieved by that order, the 4th respondent, on the one hand, and the 3rd respondent, on the other hand, filed F.A.Nos.208 and 316 of 2010 respectively, before the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Commission’). The 3rd respondent also filed E.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2011 in those appeals. The Commission passed a common order, dated 09.04.2011, in the appeals and the applications. It was noted that the petitioner herein is in occupation of one old room, he shall be made a proforma party in C.C.No.1026 of 2007, and that the 4th respondent shall demolish the old structure in south-east corner, and proceed with the construction. The Commission further directed that it shall be open to the parties to take police help, if anyone offers resistance. Stating to be in compliance with the directions issued by the Commission, the 3rd respondent filed E.A.No.38 of 2013 before the Forum. The Commission further directed that it shall be open to the parties to take police help, if anyone offers resistance. Stating to be in compliance with the directions issued by the Commission, the 3rd respondent filed E.A.No.38 of 2013 before the Forum. The Forum passed an order, dated 23.12.2013. It observed that on receipt of notice, the petitioner appeared before it, he was furnished all the documents which he wanted and that his request for further time cannot be acceded to, since its role is limited to the execution of the order passed by the State Commission. The petitioner was given 15 days time to vacate the premises and the 4th respondent herein was directed to complete the left over construction work after the demolition. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. Sri Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client is not a party to the dispute between respondents 3 and 4 and that neither the Forum, nor the Commission have the power to direct eviction of the petitioner. He contends that an attempt was made by the owner of the premises to evict the petitioner and the same did not fructify. He further contends that the order under challenge is without jurisdiction. The 3rd respondent appeared in person. She submits that the petitioner was tenant in respect of a small portion at one point of time and though he vacated the same long ago, he is pressed into service by the builder, to cover up his lapses. She contends that even according to the petitioner, the premises under his occupation were demolished and that there is no averment that he has paid any rent in the recent past. It is also her case that when an attempt was made to implead the petitioner herein in the proceedings before the Forum, he remained ex parte even after receiving notice and that the sole objective of filing this writ petition is only to help the builder, the 4th respondent, to avoid his obligation to complete the construction. She submits that for the past one decade, herself and her family members have been denied the shelter as well as the proportionate share in the constructed area. She submits that for the past one decade, herself and her family members have been denied the shelter as well as the proportionate share in the constructed area. An objection is also raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition stating that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Forum, he can approach the Commission. The proceedings before the Forum are in the form of execution of an order. The record discloses that the premises owned by the 3rd respondent were given for development to the 4th respondent more than a decade ago and though the construction was required to be completed by the end of 2005, the 4th respondent did not comply with the obligation. In C.C. No.1026 of 2007 filed by the 3rd respondent, the Forum passed an order requiring both the parties to take certain steps and issued a set of directions. Both of them filed appeals to the extent they felt aggrieved by the order. The excuse pleaded by the 4th respondent for not completing the construction was that the petitioner herein is in occupation of certain area and since the premises was not vacated, he is unable to discharge his obligation. Had it been a case where the petitioner is a tenant of a definite extent of premises and he is paying rent regularly, this Court would have certainly come to his rescue. The reason is that if any premises is under occupation of a person in his capacity as a tenant, the Forum, or for that matter, the State Commission are not conferred with the power to pass orders of eviction. Even according to the petitioner, he was tenant in respect of four rooms of house No.5-8-29 since 1974 and in the year 2010, respondents 3 and 4 have illegally and highhandedly demolished three rooms. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed in this Writ Petition reads as under: “I submit I am tenant and I am in possession of the 4 rooms in H.No.5-8-29 Fatehsultan, Nampally, Hyderabad since 1974 onwards, I submit that in the year 2010 the Respondent No.3 and 4 illegally and high handedly demolished 3 rooms. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed in this Writ Petition reads as under: “I submit I am tenant and I am in possession of the 4 rooms in H.No.5-8-29 Fatehsultan, Nampally, Hyderabad since 1974 onwards, I submit that in the year 2010 the Respondent No.3 and 4 illegally and high handedly demolished 3 rooms. I protested and with the help of neighbours could resist their illegal acts of demolition and I am in possession of one room.” The fact that the new building was constructed in the entire area except for a small room discloses that the petitioner was evicted, for all practical purposes. Though the petitioner mentioned that he is in possession of one room, it is difficult to believe the same. The reason is that if, in fact, he has been evicted from three rooms, it would not be possible for him to live in a left over room. Secondly, the petitioner is silent as to how much rent he was paying earlier and how much rent he is paying now. When a specific question was put across the bar in this regard, no answer whatever was forthcoming. The very purpose of creating the Forum or Commission under the Act is to ensure that the grievances of the citizens are redressed without subjecting the proceedings, to technicalities. As many as 24 flats are said to have been constructed in the premises and 90% of the construction is said to be completed. It appears that the writ petition is filed to help the 4th respondent to avoid handing over of the possession of the premises or to pay the compensation, as directed by the said Forum or Commission. At least when the petitioner was put on notice, he could have stated his view point. On the other hand, he wanted to drag the proceedings and thereby to help the 4th respondent. Even if the orders of the Commission and Forum are executed, the petitioner cannot be said to be subjected to any detriment. His alleged rights in respect of one room in a dilapidated building cannot be put above the interests of the owners of 25 flats or the builder and the owner of the land. He can file a suit for damages, if he suffered any detriment. His alleged rights in respect of one room in a dilapidated building cannot be put above the interests of the owners of 25 flats or the builder and the owner of the land. He can file a suit for damages, if he suffered any detriment. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies by filing a suit or by initiating other proceedings in accordance with law. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall stand disposed of.