Raghava Rao, J.
1. In the course of proceedings for execution of an order for eviction under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, the present petitioner caused an obstruction which was directed to be removed by the executing Court. This revision petition which is preferred against the order of removal is sought to be sustained by Mr. M. S. Venkatarama Aiyar learned advocate for the petitioner, with reference to Section 12(b) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949, as amended by Madras Act 8 of 1951.
2. A two-fold objection has been raised to the case of the petitioner before me by Mr. Vaithiswaran, learned advocate for the respondent. Firstly he says that the proper remedy for the petitioner is a suit under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil P. C. as would follow from the ruling of this Court reported in -- 'Mathradas Vadilal v. Kishen Jhavar', : AIR1951Mad822 (A), which in its turn is based upon an earlier Bench ruling of this Court in -- 'Thangaswami Chettiar v. Bapoo Sahib', : AIR1951Mad804 (B). I am not satisfied that this objection can be upheld. Where the Act does itself provide for revisability of an order of the kind with which I am concerned, as indeed Section 12(b) of the Act does, I do not think I shall be justified in refusing to consider the merits of this revision on the ground of the existence of a remedy by way of a separate suit. It is true that ordinarily I do not interfere in revision where there is a remedy by way of a suit, but as I have said revision being the remedy specifically provided for by Section 12(b) of the Apt, I proceed to consider the merits of this case.
3. Learned advocate for the respondent urges on this aspect that there is no ground for revision because such evidence as the petitioner could well have adduced she undoubtedly was not prevented by the Court or by the opposite side from adducing. The only point urged for the petitioner is that the Court below disposed of the petition for removal of obstruction on affidavits solely, and that while that sort of procedure might be permissible in proceedings under the Civil Procedure Code, the Court below should have adopted the procedure of a regular trial by means of oral evidence in the matter out of which this revision petition arises. I am not satisfied that this contention, iscorrect. Order 19, Civil P. C. which providesfor the procedure applicable to suits which by Section 9, Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act 1949, as amended by Act 8 of 1951,has been made applicable to proceedings under this latter Act sufficiently authorises theprocedure adopted by the Court below in thepresent case. It is contended by Mr. Venkata-rama Aiyar that because an order for evictionunder the Madras Buildings (Lease and RentControl) Act, 1949, is executable as if it werea decree passed by the executing Court itself,the procedure adopted by the Court below wasirregular. I do not think that that provisionas to executability has anything to do withthe question as to whether a procedure by wayof affidavits was or was not quite sufficient inthe circumstances of the present case. Merelybecause the order for eviction is to be executed as if it were a decree, it does not, in myopinion, follow that the proceeding which hasgiven rise to the order for eviction can be re-garded as a regular suit, to which the ordinaryprocedure of trial of suits under the Code ofCivil Procedure becomes applicable. The orderfor eviction may well be executable as if itwere a decree but the supposition is that it isnot a decree excepting so far as the executability is concerned. Much less does it followthat the proceeding in which the order foreviction is made is to be regarded as a suit towhich the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply. This revision petition is for thereasons given above dismissed with costs.