ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in E.A. No. 281 of 2014 in E.P. No. 209 of 2012 in RCOP No. 16 of 2003 on the file of Additional Rent Controller/District Munsif, Madurai, dated 19.12.2014. 2. The facts of the case:- (i) Petition property originally belonged to one Pandi Naidu. He filed RCOP No. 16 of 2003 for eviction of one Sarojini Ammal, mother of respondent on the ground of wilful default and another RCOP No. 15 of 2013 for fixation of fair rent. While RCOPs were pending, the said Pandi Naidu died. The petitioners herein were impleaded as petitioners in the said RCOPs as legal representatives of said Pandi Naidu. After contest, both RCOPs were allowed. Against the said order allowing the RCOP, two RCAs were filed in RCA Nos. 29 and 30 of 2010. Both the RCAs were dismissed. The petitioners filed E.P. No. 209 of 2012 for eviction of said Sarojini Ammal, as per the order passed in RCOP No. 16 of 2013. While said Execution Petition was pending, Sarojini Ammal filed two Civil Revision Petitions in CRPs. 742 and 743 of 2013, which were dismissed. (ii) In E.P. No. 209 of 2012, delivery was ordered and on the application filed by the petitioners, Police protection was also ordered. At that stage, Sarojini Ammal filed E.A. No. 281 of 2014 to decide whether one Krishnamoorthy, who is the petitioner in RCOP No. 75 of 2006 is the legal representative of deceased Pandi Naidu and determine whether E.P. No. 209 of 2012 is maintainable without impleading all the legal representatives of the deceased Pandi Naidu. The said Execution Application was taken on file by the learned Additional District Munsif, Madurai and it was posted for enquiry on 19.12.2014. Pending Execution Petition, Sarojini Ammal who was the petitioner in E.A. No. 281 of 2014, died on 26.05.2015. The respondent was impleaded as respondent in Execution Petition as legal representative of Sarojini Ammal. The revision petitioner filed this revision, challenging the order dated 19.12.2014. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that originally two RCOPs for eviction and fixation of fair rent were filed by Pandi Naidu. After his death, the petitioners were impleaded as legal heirs of said Pandi Naidu. They only conducted RCOPs filed by Pandi Naidu. The revision petitioner filed this revision, challenging the order dated 19.12.2014. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that originally two RCOPs for eviction and fixation of fair rent were filed by Pandi Naidu. After his death, the petitioners were impleaded as legal heirs of said Pandi Naidu. They only conducted RCOPs filed by Pandi Naidu. Similarly, after eviction order, when Sarojini Ammal filed RCAs and CRPs, the petitioners only conducted the case as landlords. The Rent Control Authority is only Tribunal and it is not a Civil Court and provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable. It is necessary to implead all co-owners in rent control proceedings. All the legal representatives having interest and title over the petition premises are only petitioners and they were conducting the case from the date of death of said Pandi Naidu. The petition in E.A. No. 281 of 2014 filed by Sarojini Ammal to decide whether said Krishnamoorthy petitioner in RCOP No. 75 of 2006 is one of the legal representatives of Pandi Naidu and determine whether Execution Petition is not maintainable without impleading all the legal representatives of Pandi Naidu. The said Krishnamoorthy is not the legal representative of Pandi Naidu. He claims to be husband of one Marammal, who is daughter of Pandi Naidu through his first wife. Whether the said Krishnamoorthy is legal heir or whether he has any title in the petition premises cannot be decided by Execution Court. It is well settled that all the co-owners or all the legal heirs of original owner need not be party to the rent control proceedings. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments and prayed for allowing the revision. (i) 2009 3 LW 229 (Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya Nadar Uravinmurai, through its Secretary vs. Thirumangalam Panidar Kula Shatriya Nadar Uravinmurai at Dindigul, through its Muthalmuraikarar), relevant para 24, wherein it has been held as follows:- 24. In so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, with the cost of repetition, it is stated that the petitioners have not taken any independent plea but reiterated the defence already raised by his father as his own plea. In so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, with the cost of repetition, it is stated that the petitioners have not taken any independent plea but reiterated the defence already raised by his father as his own plea. As adverted to supra, the appellate authority as well as this Court have finally decided the rights of the parties in the RCOP proceedings by stating that the petitioners are landlord as respects the property. Allowing the Executing Court to proceed with the hard task recording the oral evidence, assessing the rights of the parties and to adjudicate them would be waste of judicial time and in the considered view of this Court, the present litigation by the first respondent is abuse of process of Court and the pleadings in E.A. No. 271 of 2007 have to be struck off, in the interest of justice, bearing in mind the fact that there shall be no second round of litigation with respect to the rights already discussed and settled by this Court, besides which the matter also set at rest by this Court. Moreover, there is no appeal form the order passed in CRP by this Court. (ii) I (2016) SLT 585 (Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others Vs. M. Chinniyan and another), relevant para 35, wherein it has been held as follows:- 35. Likewise, so far as issue pertaining to joinder of all co-owners in eviction petition filed against the tenant under the Rent Laws is concerned, the same also remains no more res Integra and stands settled by several decisions of this Court. In Dhannalal vs. Kalawathibai Ors., (Supra), this Court took note of all case laws on the subject and explained the legal position governing the issue. Justice R.C. Lahoti (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held in paragraph 16 as under :- “16. In Dhannalal vs. Kalawathibai Ors., (Supra), this Court took note of all case laws on the subject and explained the legal position governing the issue. Justice R.C. Lahoti (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Bench held in paragraph 16 as under :- “16. It is well settled by at least three decisions of this Court, namely, Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, (1976) 4 SCC 184 Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814 and Pal Singh v. Sunder Singh, (1989) 1 SCC 444 that one of the co-owners can alone and in his own right file a suit for ejectment of the tenant and it is no defence open to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. When the property forming the subject-matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and it cannot be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property so long as the property has not been partitioned. He can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object. In Sri Ram Pasricha case reliance was placed by the tenant on the English rule that if two or more landlords institute a suit for possession on the ground that a dwelling house is required for occupation of one of them as a residence the suit would fail; the requirement must be of all the landlords. The Court noted that the English rule was not followed by the High Courts of Calcutta and Gujarat which High Courts have respectfully dissented from the rule of English law. This Court held that a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff though he was not the absolute and full owner of the premises because he required the premises for his own use and also satisfied the requirement of being “if he is the owner”, the expression as employed by Section 13(1)(f) of the W.B. Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.” 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the said Krishnamoorthy is claiming to be the absolute owner of petition premises. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the said Krishnamoorthy is claiming to be the absolute owner of petition premises. He has also filed RCOP No. 75 of 2016 for eviction of respondent from the very same petition premises. There is a confusion and dispute with regard to ownership of petition premises. Therefore, E.A. No. 281 of 2014 is maintainable. The Execution Application filed under Section 47 of CPC can be decided only on merits by the Court. The said application cannot be strike off under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The leaned counsel for the respondent relied on the Judgment reported in 2013 (4) LW 224 (A. Anusuya Vs. Santhi Sivasasmy and another), relevant portion reads as follows:- 4. .... However, I only say that when a petition is filed under Section 47 CPC by a party to the Proceedings, it is for the Court to consider the same and decide it on merits, after giving due opportunity to the other side. In this case, the Court below rejected the application even before numbering the same. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. From the materials on record, it is seen that originally Pandi Naidu filed RCOP No. 16 of 2013 for eviction of Sarojini ammal from the petition premises. After his death, petitioners were impleaded as legal heirs and they conducted the case. This Court confirmed the order of eviction passed by Rent Control Authority, on the dismissal of RCA. In all these proceedings, the petitioners alone were shown as owners and landlords of the petition property. In the circumstances, Execution Court cannot decide whether there is any other legal heir of Pandi Naidu, having interest, right or title in petition property. Further, Krishnamoorthy, who claims title over the property, is not legal heir of Pandi Naidu. He is husband of one Marammal, Daughter of Pandi Naidu, through his first wife. According to said Krishnamoorthy, the petition property was gifted to him by his wife. This issue cannot be decided by Execution Court. The Execution Court cannot go beyond the order of the eviction passed by the Competent Court. Further, whether all the co-owners or all the legal heirs of the deceased owner are necessary party in eviction proceedings or not in rent control proceedings is no longer res integra. 7. This issue cannot be decided by Execution Court. The Execution Court cannot go beyond the order of the eviction passed by the Competent Court. Further, whether all the co-owners or all the legal heirs of the deceased owner are necessary party in eviction proceedings or not in rent control proceedings is no longer res integra. 7. The provisions of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 alone is applicable to Rent Control Proceedings. The Rent Control as well as Appellate Courts are only Tribunals and provisions of CPC are not applicable to the Rent Control Proceedings. A landlord is entitled to initiate proceedings under Rent Control Act has been defined by the Act itself. It is well settled by the Judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court that all the Co-owners or all the legal heirs need not join in Rent Control proceedings. Therefore, E.A. No. 281 of 2014 filed by Sarojini Ammal is devoid of merits and is not maintainable. 8. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in I (2016) SLT 585 (Kasthuri Radhakrishnan and others Vs. M. Chinniyan and another), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners has categorically stated that it is not necessary to implead all the co-owners in the eviction petition. The Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners have considered this issue and the ratio in these judgments support the contentions of petitioners. This Court in the Judgment reported in 2009 3 LW 229 (Dindigul Pettai Sathangudi Shatriya Nadar Uravinmurai, through its Secretary vs. Thirumangalam Panidar Kula Shatriya Nadar Uravinmurai at Dindigul, through its Muthalmuraikarar), held that after confirming the eviction order in Civil Revision Petition permitting the Execution Court to decide the issue of ownership is abuse of process of law and waste of judicial time. This Court in that case, exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India struck off the application filed in Execution Proceedings to decide the ownership issue. The application in E.A. No. 281 of 2014 filed by Sarojini Ammal, which is being contested by respondent, after the death of Sarojini Ammal is abuse of process of Court. 9. This Court has power of superintendence over Subordinate Courts. The application in E.A. No. 281 of 2014 filed by Sarojini Ammal, which is being contested by respondent, after the death of Sarojini Ammal is abuse of process of Court. 9. This Court has power of superintendence over Subordinate Courts. This Court can exercise the following powers:- a) prevent abuse of process of law b) prevent miscarriage of justice c) prevent grave injustice d) to establish both administrative as well as judicial powers of High Court. 10. The powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India has to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The present case is a fit case to exercise power under this Article. E.A. No. 281 of 2014 filed by Sarojini Ammal is clear abuse of process of law. The Executing Court has no power to decide the issue raised in E.A. No. 281 of 2014, after this Court confirmed the order of eviction passed by Rent Controller and confirmed by Appellate Authority. 11. In view of the Judgments relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners, the Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent does not advance the case of respondent. 12. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed as prayed for and E.A. No. 281 of 2014 in E.P. No. 209 of 2012 in RCOP No. 16 of 2003 is struck off from the file of the learned Additional Rent Controller/District Munsif, Madurai. No costs.