IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASsljR 9 CIVIL REVISION No. 9 ^ /2011 REVISION UNDER SECTION 23 E f2) OF CHHATTISGARH ACCOMMODATION CONTROL ACT, 1961 v\ V) APPLICANTS/TENANTS 1. Sardar^^Satp.al Singh, aged /' about&&years, 2. Sardar Iqbal Singh, aged about 45 years, 3.. Sardar Gurpal Singh, aged •^ about 42 years, All S/o Late Vidyal Singh Babra, R/o Church Road (in front of Church) Kedarpur, Ambikapur, P.S, & Tahsil - Ambikapur, District - Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Vs. 1. Jainath Shukla S/o Late Shivbihari Shukla, Retired Govt. Servant (now died) Through : their !egal representatives 1 (a) Smt. Saroj Shukla W/o Late ^ Jainath Shukla, aged about 74 yrs. 1 (b) Sachin Dev Shukla S/o Late ^' Jainath Shukla, aged about 50 years, l-(c) Jaidev Shukla S/o Late RESPONDENT Jainath Shukla, aged about 48 years, AII.R/o Church Road (in front of Church) Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Civil Revision No. 98 of 2011 APPLICANTS Tenants Sardar Satpal Singh and others. RESPONDENTS Jaing.th ShuMa (died) fhrough legal representatives Smt. Saroj Shukla and offaers. S.B. s HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. J Stoi Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the applicants/tenants. ORAL ORDER (30-08-2011) The tnstant revision under Section 23-E (2) of fhe Chliattisgarh Acconimodatlon Control Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act of 1961^ is directed agauist the order dated 25.08.2011 passed by the Rent Controlliiig Authority, Ambikaj3ur (for short the R.C.A.^ m case No. 03-B-121-2005- 06 whereby and whereunder the leamed R.C.A. directed fhe applicants to hand over the possession of fhe suit laad and house to' respbndents No. l(a) to (c) whUe rejecttng their objection. - 2. Facts of fhe case in brief are as under: (i) Eviction order against fhe applicants/tenants was passed by the R.C.A. on 24.03.2006. Civfl Revision bearin^ r -^" 1 -;A-WS!i^' B t:tt.- s^" .A-' :;;Sn;n:',-^' ^ No. 47/2006 under Section 23-E of ti-ie Act of 1961 preferred thereagainst was dismissed by this Court. The S.L.P. preferred was also dismissed on 26th August, 2010. (ii) During pendency of fhe execution, the original landlord i.e. Jainafh Shukla died-on 26.10.2010. The legal representatives of deceased - Jainath Shukla have made an application for substitution of fheir name in fhe execution and fhe said application was allowed by the R.C.A. (iii) On 10.05.2011, objection was raised by fhe applicants heretn regarduig tnexecutabflity of eviction order on fhe ground of death of landlord duruig pendency of execution proceeding. According to fhe applicants; need betng personal is vanlshed on fhe death of landlord and fhe eviction order carinot be executed at fhe uistaace of his legal representatives. (iv) The R.C.A. as weU as this Court rejected applicants' prayer. * (v) This Court vide ord€r dated 1st August, 2011, while dismissing the applicants' prayer of inexecutability of eviction order, has set aside fhe direction ofR.C.A. directing Executive Magistrate to execute the eviction order and du-ected him to deliver possession to the legal representatives of the deceased landlord - Jainath Shukla. Thereafter, fhe R.C.A. vide notice dated 12.08.2011 dtrected fhe applicants to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents else fhey will be dispossessed with fhe help of poUce. (vi) The objection raised by the appUcants agatnst above notice dated 12.08.2011 was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.08.2011. Hence, fhis revision. 3. Shri Saajay Kumar Agrawal, leamed coruisel for the applicants, would submit: as per Section 35 of the Act of 1961, the eviction order passed by the leamed R.C.A. under Chapter III-A of the Act of 1961 has been made executable as a decree of a Civil Court and for fhat purpose, fhe R.C.A. shaU have all the powers of a Civil Court, therefore, the R.C.A. is not empowered to execute the eviction order de hors fhe provisions of order 21 of C.P.C. Direction of execution of eyiction order with the help of police force mentioned in fhe notice dated 12.08.2011 also runs counter to fhe order offhis Court dated 1st August, 2011, and therefore, the leamed R.C.A. exceeded its jurisdiction in passtng the order unpugned. > 4. I have heard leamed counsel for (he applicants. 5. The present revision is a typical example of desperate effort of fhe judgment-debtor to ward off execution of eviction order till police knocks at fhe door. 6. Section 35 of fhe Act of 1961 empowers fhe R.C.A. to execute its own order and for fhat purpose it has all the powers of Civil Court. The Legislatiire in its wisdoia has given above powers to the R.C.A. in order to facUitate execution of eviction orders passed by it and not to put a C\Q[ upon it. After being unsuccessful tUl Honl3le Apex Court, fhe applicants have again raised objection regarding inexecutability of tfae eviction order. The same was disiaissed by this Court vide order dated 1st August, 2011 wifh fhe modiflcation, fhe R.C.A. cannot get fhe eviction order executed through Executive Magistrate as the R.C.A. itself has powers to execute fhe same. At fhis stage, vlde notice dated 12.8.2011, fhe R.C.A. has dtrected the appllcants to vacate the suit premises and hand over its vacant possession. The R.C.A. has, vide above notice dated 12.08.2011, directed fhe applicants to vacate fhe premises to avoid execution of order by means of unpleasant modes i.e. with the help of police. It .cannot be disputed, a Civil Court has inherent powers ki suitable cases fp execute its own orders wifh fhe help of police. In fhtf'tnstant case, aU possible efforts have been made by fhe applicants to avoid execution of order and nofhing left now. Even it appears, they are not ready to hand over vacant-possession of fhe siiit premises peacefiiUy by foUowing provisions of law. No equity lies in thelr favour. aA 7. When fhe matter is examined in fhe context of above broad features of fhe case, in the opinion of this Coiirt, the order iinpugned does not suffer from any material jiirisdictional irregularity leadtng to manifest justice to the applicants causing prejudice to them and does not warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge