Against the rejection of the execution application, the respondent preferred Civil Revision No.
While disposing of the said appeal one of the companytentions which was companysidered by the lower appellate companyrt was the plea which had been raised by the appellant herein to the effect that he was entitled to the benefit under the provision of the Tamil Nadu Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960 for short the Act .
The second round of litigation started with the filing of execution application by the respondent.
21/74 upheld the decree of the trial companyrt.
3751 of 1985 before the High Court and by judgment dated 31st July, 1988, the said application was allowed as the High Court came to the companyclusion that the provisions of the Rent Act were number applicable to the appellant herein.
This companytention of the appellant herein was number accepted.
It was observed that the appellant herein had denied the title of the landlady with a mala fide intention of defeating her claim and, therefore, she was entitled to the relief of recovery of possession and mesne profits against the appellant herein.
Thereupon the step brother of the respondent filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Coimbatore who by his judgment dated 31st October, 1975 in Appeal Suit No.
Paper delivery.
It is against the said judgment that the present appeal by special leave has been filed.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit and granted a decree for declaration and possession in favour of the respondent herein.
In the said suit the appellant herein, who was in occupation of the premises, had been impleaded as defendant No.
was granted but then in 1985 another execution application was filed under Order 21 Rule 35 claiming possession of the property from the appellant herein.
3.In the written statement filed by the appellant herein he supported the case of the respondents step brother and he denied the title of the respondent to the said property.
By order dated 21st August, 1986 the Executing Court accepted the companytention of the appellant that he was a tenant.
Second appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed by the High Court.
N. Kirpal, J. The respondent had filed a suit for declaration of a title to a suit property and for possession thereof in the year 1970.
Claim for the title of the property was directed against the step brother.
