An appeal without a stay does not prevent execution of an eviction order.

The underlying rent petitions, brought under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017, had been allowed on 17 June 2026.

In the execution proceedings, the tenant was set ex parte after service by paper publication. The tenant’s application to set aside the ex parte order was allowed on 15 September 2026, but no counter was filed before the execution court ordered delivery on 22 September 2026.

The tenant also informed the execution court that an appeal against the rent court’s order had been filed but not numbered; no stay had been granted.

The tenant sought revision under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the execution court’s delivery orders should be set aside because the tenant was not given a reasonable opportunity to file a counter and contest the execution petitions.

Whether the pending, unnumbered appeal against the rent court’s order prevented the execution court from ordering delivery in the absence of a stay.

The revisions were brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which provides the procedural basis for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

The underlying rent petitions sought repossession under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017.

The Court applied the principle that, where no stay has been granted by the appellate court, the execution court is not prevented from proceeding with execution.

No precedent was cited.

The Court rejected the tenant’s claim that there had been no reasonable opportunity to file a counter. After the ex parte order was set aside, the tenant still did not file a counter; the Court considered that the tenant could have done so when seeking to set aside the ex parte order or after that application was allowed.

The tenant’s ability to file a memo before the execution court further undermined the claim that an opportunity had been denied.

As the appeal had not been numbered when delivery was ordered and no stay had been granted—and the tenant confirmed that no stay had since been made—the Court found no impediment to execution and no error in the delivery orders.

It granted the tenant time to hand over vacant possession by 30 November 2026, subject to filing an undertaking affidavit by 15 October 2026. If the affidavit was not filed by that date, the respondent could proceed with the execution petitions according to law.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.