IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 613 of 2011(O) ------------------------ AS.271/2005 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR RCP.73/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ KABEER P.S., S/O.SEEDHI, PUDUR HOUSE, KOTTOL DESOM, PAZHANJI, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SULAIMAN, S/O.THONNAMPULLY BAPPUTTY, KATTAKAMBAL, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SEEDHI, S/O.MUHAMMED, PUDUR HOUSE, KOTTOL DESOM, PAZHANJI VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P.(C).No.613 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 14 th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT RCP No.73 of 1999 on the file of the Rent Control Court, Chavakkad was filed by the first respondent Sulaiman against Sidhi, the second respondent. The Rent Control Court dismissed the application. An appeal was filed by the landlord as RCA No.102 of 2000. In the appeal, the matter was compromised between the landlord and the tenant. The Rent Control Appeal was allowed as per the judgment dated 14.6.2001, by which eviction was allowed, and the tenant had agreed to surrender vacant possession on 30.6.2001. 2. Alleging that the tenant failed to comply with the compromise decree, E.P.No.744 of 2001 was filed for delivery. Amin was deputed. The Amin reported that the petitioner, the son of the tenant, obstructed. The petitioner filed an O.P.(C).No.613 OF 2011 2 application before the Executing Court under Rule 97 of Order XXI C.P.C.staking claim to room No.II/178. It was contended that in respect of room No.178, the petitioner is the tenant. It was also contended that the building which is the subject matter of the Rent Control Petition is room No.II/177. The Executing Court rejected the contentions of the petitioner. The petitioner filed A.S.No.271 of 2005 on the file of the District Court, Thrissur. The Appellate Court held that the building sought to be delivered was room No.II/177 and that room No.II/178 over which the petitioner claimed right was not sought to be delivered. 3. Thereafter, it would appear that Amin was deputed. The Amin filed Ext.P3 report stating that the petitioner obstructed the delivery. 4. The petitioner has filed this Original Petition for the following reliefs: O.P.(C).No.613 OF 2011 3 a) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to occupy the Room No.II/178, unaffected by the execution proceedings in E.P.No.744 of 2001 in RCP No.73 of 1999 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad. b) Issue appropriate orders to the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad against the proposed eviction order of the petitioner from the room No.II/178 on the strength of the Ext.P3 report of the Amin.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the pretext of delivery of room No.II/177, the Amin wants to deliver room No.II/178. If the petitioner is evicted from room No.II/178, he would be put to irreparable injury . It is also submitted that such a delivery would be contrary to the judgment in A.S.No.271 of 2005. 6. I am sure that in view of the judgment in A.S.No.271 of 2005, there would be no delivery in respect of room No.II/178. In spite of the judgment in A.S.No.271 of 2005, if room No.II/178 is delivered, the petitioner has effective remedy. An Original Petition under Article 227 of the O.P.(C).No.613 OF 2011 4 Constitution of India cannot be filed for the reliefs which are sought for. The High Court, exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot substitute itself as an Executing Court and oversee the functions of Amin. If a wrong delivery is made, the matter can be reported to the Executing Court and appropriate redress can be had to the aggrieved. I do not find any ground to entertain the Original Petition. The Original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms