- (1.) THE Rent Controller passed an order of eviction against the petitioner herein in a proceeding under Sec.10(2)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. It is seen from the certified copy of the petition and order produced by the petitioner that though notice was served on the petitioner herein, even before 6.2.1989, he was repeatedly taking time for filing his statement of objection. On 19.9.1989 time was granted finally till 5.12.1989. The court recorded that, inspite of time having been given for filing statement of objection such statement was not filed. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioner herein and he was called absent and set ex parte. The matter was posted to 23.12.1989 for evidence. On that day, learned Rent Controller examined the landlord as P.W.1 and passed the following order: P.W.1 examined. The wilful default is proved. Hence this petition is allowed. Eviction ordered. Time two months.
(2.) WHEN the landlord filed E.P.No.538 of 1991 for executing the order, petitioner herein filed E.A.No.1147 of 1991 under Sec.47 read with Sec.151, C.P.C. for a declaration that the order of eviction passed in R.C.O.P.No.493 of 1988 is illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction and it cannot be executed. The executing court, after hearing both parties, passed an order dismissing the said application. It is that order which is challenged in this revision petition. The first contention raised by learned counsel is that the executing court has taken an erroneous view that the petition is not maintainable under Sec.47, C.P.C. According to learned counsel, Sec.18 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act provides that the Rent Controller, while executing an order of eviction, will have all the powers of a civil court. There is no substance in this contention. Even in a civil court, scope of Sec.47, C.P.C. is limited only to the extent of executing court declaring the nullity of the decree. If the decree is not a nullity, executing court is bound to execute the same even if it is erroneous. Execution cannot be stalled by a petition under Sec.47, C.P.C. in such a case. In the present case, the contention of the petitioner is that the order, being an ex parte order, should not be executed by the Rent Controller. In that context, the Rent Controller said that the application under Sec.47, C.P.C. is not maintainable.
(3.) THE next contention is that the order of the Rent Controller for eviction is a nullity. It is submitted that the Rent Controller has not expressed in the order his satisfaction that the default is wilful, after considering the evidence on record. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Balasubrahmanyan, J., in S.S.Khader Mohammed Rowther and Company v. Syed Azurdeen, 91 L.W.122. The order passed in that case is as follows: Respondent absent. No representation. Set ex parte. P.W.1 examined. Eviction ordered with costs. Learned Judge held that the order discloses total non -application of mind on the part of the Rent Controller and that the order did not satisfy the requirements of law. Learned Judge observed,. For a court or tribunal to be satisfied about something it is essential that it should have applied its mind to that subject. In this sense, satisfaction is a mental thing. But, it is implicit in our court system that the court -s satisfaction, in order to be recognisable as such, must always and ever find verbal expression. Otherwise, how on earth is one to know whether there has been any satisfaction at all, and if so of what in the mind of the court? ;